I guess it goes without saying I'm not an engineer or contractor. A
friend who's an unbelievable DIYer asked me if a (small) bathroom wall
I plan to tear down is load bearing. I couldn't answer. He asked if
my home is stick-built and if the attic has trusses.

I changed the subject.

I searched for "trusses" on Firefox and found a great site from some
Canadian truss company. I do understand what a truss is, but what I
don't understand is why a home built with "engineered trusses" should
have anything to do with whether I tear down a measly 6 or 7 feet of
(joist-perpendicular) wall.

Anyway, would I *ever* appreciate some dialogue here on these subjects.
I don't even really know what I'm asking, although from my research I
realize that if a particular attic joist ends on the measly wall I want
to tear down, that wall can't be torn down because it is therefore load
bearing.

Well, if anyone understands this, please post on why people ask if you
have engineered trusses when the subject is demolition of a measly
wall.

wrote:
what I
don't understand is why a home built with "engineered trusses" should
have anything to do with whether I tear down a measly 6 or 7 feet of
(joist-perpendicular) wall.


Engineered trusses are kind of particular about how they are supported.
They can't handle something they were not engineered for. A joist wall
perpendicular to the joist may well be load bearing and removing it could be
a very serious error.

You will not be able to find good information on the web or in this or
any newsgroup because you need someone with a good engineer's knowledge to
take a look at your specific application and advise you.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Unless you know that the Measly 7 ft wall isnt critical get a pro out,
and you dont know. It is not paralel to the joists, so its likely
holding something up.

No expert, but a "traditionally" constructed roof needs some type of
support in the form of a beam or Load-bearing wall in the house.

Support for a roof built with engineered trusses comes from the "sides"
of the house, and is distributed that way, so you wouldn't need a
"load-bearing wall" in the house.

A caution, I am not much of a carpenter or builder. Just repeating what
my contractor told me when he build an addition to my house that
included engineered trusses.

wrote in message
oups.com...
....

I searched for "trusses" on Firefox and found a great site from
some
Canadian truss company. I do understand what a truss is, but
what I
don't understand is why a home built with "engineered trusses"
should
have anything to do with whether I tear down a measly 6 or 7
feet of
(joist-perpendicular) wall.

....

I'm not sure why you would feel so sure that's not load bearing.
It may very well be, when you consider that if supports ARE used,
they will occur at either the center or, often, the 1/3 marks of
a span. Even if it's a short wall, you still don't know what's
hidden on top of it, as in some spanners that for farther than
the wall does.

It "probably" isn't load bearing, maybe, but then again, "maybe"
it is. The danger is in doing the "testing" of removing it ;-).

I'll be curious to hear what others say to this last point, but
.... I've been told that in some houses, especially those that
have suffered remodels, non load-bearing walls have inadvertantly
become load bearing and thus removal could be an iffy situation.

FWIW,

Pop

In article 1143504045.091993.155540
@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
says...

Support for a roof built with engineered trusses comes from the "sides"
of the house, and is distributed that way, so you wouldn't need a
"load-bearing wall" in the house.

Not always.

Couldn't prove it by me...that's why I noted the caution. :0

As others have said, get someone who KNOWS before you go ahead.

) said...

I searched for "trusses" on Firefox and found a great site from some
Canadian truss company. I do understand what a truss is, but what I
don't understand is why a home built with "engineered trusses" should
have anything to do with whether I tear down a measly 6 or 7 feet of
(joist-perpendicular) wall.

Stick-built roofs tend to only span about the same distance as floor
joists and would require load-bearing interior walls to support them.

Engineered trusses tend to be designed to span from exterior wall to
exterior wall.

We built our own home and it is about 33' wide. The first and
second floors have 13.5', 9', and 9.5' spans (add the 6" per bearing
wall and each exterior wall you get 33'!). The roof trusses span the
WHOLE distance.

In fact, most of the partition walls are steel stud walls and were
installed after the roof was in place. Almost all of the second floor
was ONE large room when the roof was first finished! Talk about open
concept! ;-)

We did install one partition wall made of wood in the back half of the
house near the centre to provide support when the trusses were first
craned up there and placed on their sides, but it provides no bearing
support for the trusses once they were installed upright.

--
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
"I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible"
- Paul Martin - April 30, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: if replying by email, remove "remove." and ".invalid"

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Is the wall in line with other walls, like the sides of a hallway? Is it on
top of a wall in the first story? If yes it is providing support. Whether
the support is necessary should be determined by a structural engineer.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I guess it goes without saying I'm not an engineer or contractor. A
friend who's an unbelievable DIYer asked me if a (small) bathroom wall
I plan to tear down is load bearing. I couldn't answer. He asked if
my home is stick-built and if the attic has trusses.

I changed the subject.

I searched for "trusses" on Firefox and found a great site from some
Canadian truss company. I do understand what a truss is, but what I
don't understand is why a home built with "engineered trusses" should
have anything to do with whether I tear down a measly 6 or 7 feet of
(joist-perpendicular) wall.

Anyway, would I *ever* appreciate some dialogue here on these subjects.
I don't even really know what I'm asking, although from my research I
realize that if a particular attic joist ends on the measly wall I want
to tear down, that wall can't be torn down because it is therefore load
bearing.

Well, if anyone understands this, please post on why people ask if you
have engineered trusses when the subject is demolition of a measly
wall.

According to :
I guess it goes without saying I'm not an engineer or contractor. A
friend who's an unbelievable DIYer asked me if a (small) bathroom wall
I plan to tear down is load bearing. I couldn't answer. He asked if
my home is stick-built and if the attic has trusses.

I changed the subject.

I searched for "trusses" on Firefox and found a great site from some
Canadian truss company. I do understand what a truss is, but what I
don't understand is why a home built with "engineered trusses" should
have anything to do with whether I tear down a measly 6 or 7 feet of
(joist-perpendicular) wall.

Anyway, would I *ever* appreciate some dialogue here on these subjects.
I don't even really know what I'm asking, although from my research I
realize that if a particular attic joist ends on the measly wall I want
to tear down, that wall can't be torn down because it is therefore load
bearing.

Well, if anyone understands this, please post on why people ask if you
have engineered trusses when the subject is demolition of a measly
wall.

Your friend is trying to make an educated guess as to whether the
wall is load bearing. On the top floor under a full truss roof, interior
walls will tend not to be load bearing. In a rafter style roof, interior
walls have a considerably higher likelyhood of being load bearing.

(See Henry's posting).

But neither way is a certainty.

The only way to be sure is to have someone know knows what they're doing
taking a look in the attic.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

Calvin Henry-Cotnam wrote:
..
Stick-built roofs tend to only span about the same distance as floor
joists and would require load-bearing interior walls to support them.

Engineered trusses tend to be designed to span from exterior wall to
exterior wall.


I like that "tend to be" Readers be sure to read that part carefully.
As they all are not. I would suggest that "Engineered trusses are designed
to span from load bearing surface to load bearing surface.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Jeff wrote:
Is the wall in line with other walls, like the sides of a hallway? Is it on
top of a wall in the first story? If yes it is providing support. Whether
the support is necessary should be determined by a structural engineer.

Yes, it's in line with the side of the hallway. Since this is a ranch
home (with what--thanks to you guys--I now realize is definitely a
"stick-built" roof), there's no second floor.

The 10 X 10 square that forms the bathroom area of the blueprints (main
bath + 1/4 of the sf for a powder room) is about 8' away from the main
hall load bearing wall, so Mr. Meehan's theory of "thirds" seems to
hold here...*except* that none of the bedrooms on the opposite side of
the hallway, nor the living room, have any such "third" partition
walls.

Ha, now that I think of it, the ceilings *are* sagging a little in the
bedrooms! Anyone have any surplus pillars they want to sell?

But you guys not only taught me some good lessons but convinced me not
to even think of getting out my reciprocating saw. Give a girl a
reciprocating saw and there's no telling what she won't tear down I
almost tore down the load bearing wall of a four story home I owned
when I was younger, so if you all have daughters--never give 'em a
Sawz-All without an engineering lesson!!!

I guess it goes without saying I'm not an engineer or contractor. A
friend who's an unbelievable DIYer asked me if a (small) bathroom wall
I plan to tear down is load bearing. I couldn't answer. He asked if
my home is stick-built and if the attic has trusses.

There's really only one way to find out. Climb up into the attic and see
what's resting on top of the wall, then climb down to the
crawlspace/basement and see what that wall is resting on.

If the wall is running parallel to the ceiling joists or floor trusses,
it's not load bearing (unless you see something in the attic resting on top
of the wall). If the wall is running perpendicular to the joists/trusses,
you'll need to investigate further.

If the wall is truly a bearing wall, the wall will be transferring that
load to something UNDER the wall. If you only have floor joists under the
wall, it's unlikely it is is load bearing. If you have a beam or support
wall in the crawlspace running the same direction under the wall (or offset
a foot or two either way), there's a good chance that wall is supporting
some kind of load.

If there's a door in this wall, another indicator would be to check the
framing in the wall above the door. Bearing walls will need a header above
the door, where partition walls are typically framed without a header. You
could check this with a studfinder to see what framing is inside the wall
above the door. Having a header doesn't necessarily mean the wall is load
bearing (I put headers over all my doorways, even when they weren't
needed), but if the header isn't there, it's unlikely it is bearing any
weight from above.

If you have any doubts, hire a pro to come have a look!

Anthony

Sounds like your super-DIY friend might like to help. Next time, say
"well, what do you think?" and see if he can offer something helpful.

A competent DIY should be able to take a look at the framing, the
joists, walls, etc., and decide if the thing is possibly load bearing,
and to what degree. A bathroom wall even if perpendicular might be
extraneous. Or, of little enough value that just adding a short beam
with two posts (hidden in the adjacent walls) would be enough to take
care of the floor above. But noone can tell frome here.

kevin wrote:
Sounds like your super-DIY friend might like to help. Next time, say
"well, what do you think?" and see if he can offer something helpful.

A competent DIY should be able to take a look at the framing, the
joists, walls, etc., and decide if the thing is possibly load bearing,
and to what degree. A bathroom wall even if perpendicular might be
extraneous. Or, of little enough value that just adding a short beam
with two posts (hidden in the adjacent walls) would be enough to take
care of the floor above. But noone can tell frome here.

Funny, I was just watching one of those "Re-Bath" commercials. The had
a traditional bathtub surrounded on either end with pillars!

Anyway, in regard to the double-plate for the door header, my feeling
is that whether mine has a double plate or not, from what Pop (?) said,
the way the ceilings are sagging on the half of this ranch house that
has *no* supportive walls, I tend to think that these mini-walls in the
bathroom have more than done their job in keeping a similar problem
from developping on that side of the house.

Hey everybody, thank you all VERY much.

wrote:
I guess it goes without saying I'm not an engineer or contractor. A
friend who's an unbelievable DIYer asked me if a (small) bathroom wall
I plan to tear down is load bearing. I couldn't answer. He asked if
my home is stick-built and if the attic has trusses.
...

An acquaintance of mine is now housing his mother in law and father in
law while there home is rebuilt. It seems the roofer thought he know enough
about engineered roof frames to make some changes. The walls fell in.



--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Joseph Meehan ) said...

I would suggest that "Engineered trusses are designed
to span from load bearing surface to load bearing surface.

But isn't that statement true for ANY type of roof?

The question, of course, is what are the load bearing surfaces?

It is safe to say that the outside walls are, but it is not always
obvious just what other walls are.

With our house, the back half of the house has trusses that span the full
width, but the front half is two different sets of trusses since the slopes
differ at the front due to a room above the garage that is lower (you can
see some photos of the roof work at http://newhome.daxack.ca/Photos/Roof).

It is fairly obvious, probably from just looking at the exterior, but
definately from looking in the attic, that there is a bearing wall
separating the two front halves. It is not so obvious that there is one
wall about 5' long that is a bearing wall that extends from an outside
wall in a direction that is perpendicular to the trusses above. It can be
seen in the photos near the bottom, labelled "Viewfrom front bedroom".

--
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
"I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible"
- Paul Martin - April 30, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: if replying by email, remove "remove." and ".invalid"

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

"Calvin Henry-Cotnam" wrote in message
m...
) said...

I searched for "trusses" on Firefox and found a great site from some
Canadian truss company. I do understand what a truss is, but what I
don't understand is why a home built with "engineered trusses" should
have anything to do with whether I tear down a measly 6 or 7 feet of
(joist-perpendicular) wall.

Stick-built roofs tend to only span about the same distance as floor
joists and would require load-bearing interior walls to support them.

Engineered trusses tend to be designed to span from exterior wall to
exterior wall.

We built our own home and it is about 33' wide. The first and
second floors have 13.5', 9', and 9.5' spans (add the 6" per bearing
wall and each exterior wall you get 33'!). The roof trusses span the
WHOLE distance.

In fact, most of the partition walls are steel stud walls and were
installed after the roof was in place. Almost all of the second floor
was ONE large room when the roof was first finished! Talk about open
concept! ;-)

We did install one partition wall made of wood in the back half of the
house near the centre to provide support when the trusses were first
craned up there and placed on their sides, but it provides no bearing
support for the trusses once they were installed upright.


A lesson learned about trusses.
Even though they are designed to span the whole distance this is not
without some flex. This is what happened to me.

36' wide house, trusses designed to span the whole width. The problem was
caused by the fact that there ARE other support walls. The only spot in the
house where the trusses actually span the whole width of the house is about
4 ft wide, after about 8 years the ceiling there cracked. The crack was
repaired and it would actually stay closed for a year or two. Final fix was
made by fabricating a beam out of plywood and 2x8 to span from the trusses
that were suported by the interior walls across those that were not . These
trusses were fastened to the beam with metal straps and the crack repaired
for the last time.

Beam is in the attic and the trusses hang from it.

If the interior walls had been built so they did not support the trusses
there probably would never have been a problem.

According to :

36' wide house, trusses designed to span the whole width. The problem was
caused by the fact that there ARE other support walls. The only spot in the
house where the trusses actually span the whole width of the house is about
4 ft wide, after about 8 years the ceiling there cracked. The crack was
repaired and it would actually stay closed for a year or two. Final fix was
made by fabricating a beam out of plywood and 2x8 to span from the trusses
that were suported by the interior walls across those that were not . These
trusses were fastened to the beam with metal straps and the crack repaired
for the last time.

Beam is in the attic and the trusses hang from it.

If the interior walls had been built so they did not support the trusses
there probably would never have been a problem.

Sounds like you have an odd shaped house.

It's fairly typical that truss ceilings will "lift" off interior partition walls
on a seasonal basis. So, "floating" the trusses doesn't always work either.

There's a variety of tricks required to avoid such problems.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

In article ,
Chris Lewis wrote:
According to :

36' wide house, trusses designed to span the whole width. The problem was
caused by the fact that there ARE other support walls. The only spot in the
house where the trusses actually span the whole width of the house is about
4 ft wide, after about 8 years the ceiling there cracked. The crack was
repaired and it would actually stay closed for a year or two. Final fix was
made by fabricating a beam out of plywood and 2x8 to span from the trusses
that were suported by the interior walls across those that were not . These
trusses were fastened to the beam with metal straps and the crack repaired
for the last time.

Beam is in the attic and the trusses hang from it.

If the interior walls had been built so they did not support the trusses
there probably would never have been a problem.

Sounds like you have an odd shaped house.

It's fairly typical that truss ceilings will "lift" off interior partition walls
on a seasonal basis. So, "floating" the trusses doesn't always work either.

There's a variety of tricks required to avoid such problems.

Like what? (interesting subject)

David

According to David Combs :
In article ,
Chris Lewis wrote:

There's a variety of tricks required to avoid such problems.

Like what? (interesting subject)

I don't really remember the details very well. The issue revolves around
the fact that the bottom chord of a truss _may_ want to lift off
interior partitions. I think in some cases, you can simply fasten the
chord down hard to the top plate, perhaps with joist hangers. Others
revolve around techniques on how to dry wall the wall-ceiling joint.

And there's always crown moldings ;-)
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

According to :

Trusses are another 2000's nightmare. In the old days, there was a
thing called an attic. The ceiling joists that were under that attic
floor were well supported 2X8's or 2X10's and were strong.

Oh really? I've seen my share of 18' plus spans of 2x4 holding up
drywall, sagging as much as 3" or more in the middle.

The only way to permanently solve your problem is to completely remove
the entire roof structure, clear down to the supporting walls, and
start over, building a proper roof using real lumber.
As long as you have a house roof built with trusses, you are living in
a cheap flimsy box which will collapse and be destroyed as soon as
high winds hit. But remember this.... It wont be just the roof that
comes off, the entire house will be destroyed, the same way a storm
destroys a cardboard box.

Heh. You should see my shed. Trusses. It's the strongest structure
in the township.

Trusses, properly spec'd and installed, are stronger and more rigid
than most equivalent roof structures.

What they don't like is people screwing around with them.
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

In article ,
Chris Lewis wrote:
According to David Combs :
In article ,
Chris Lewis wrote:

There's a variety of tricks required to avoid such problems.

Like what? (interesting subject)

I don't really remember the details very well. The issue revolves around
the fact that the bottom chord of a truss _may_ want to lift off
interior partitions. I think in some cases, you can simply fasten the
chord down hard to the top plate, perhaps with joist hangers. Others
revolve around techniques on how to dry wall the wall-ceiling joint.

And there's always crown moldings ;-)
--
Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est
It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them.

Thanks for the explanations!

David

wrote:

Trusses are another 2000's nightmare. In the old days, there was a
thing called an attic. The ceiling joists that were under that attic
floor were well supported 2X8's or 2X10's and were strong. Now,
houses have no attics. Just a wasted hole above the house, clutterred
with all the sticks that hold together the weak trusses, made out of
2x3's or 2x4's held together with flimsy pieces of tin, and they cost
a fortune, and require costly heavy machinery to lift in place.
Trusses were originally designed for barns, sheds, and warehouses,
where there was no need for a person to walk on them, and no heavy
plaster or sheetrock hanging from them, causing them to bow and warp
from the weight. If you want to use trusses in your house, you will
pay the price, over and over and over. If you had used solid lumber
in the first place, you would not have cracking ceilings, no usable
attic, and a house roof that will self destruct in a heavy wind storm.

The only way to permanently solve your problem is to completely remove
the entire roof structure, clear down to the supporting walls, and
start over, building a proper roof using real lumber.
As long as you have a house roof built with trusses, you are living in
a cheap flimsy box which will collapse and be destroyed as soon as
high winds hit. But remember this.... It wont be just the roof that
comes off, the entire house will be destroyed, the same way a storm
destroys a cardboard box.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Yours just happen to be wrong.
Pretty much everyone of your points above is
Chicken-Little-The-Sky-Is-Falling crap.

If you want attic space, you ask that the trusses be designed with an
attic space.
You want stiffer than normal to reduce cracking (psst - not having an
attic reduces the load up there and reduces cracking), ask for more
stringent deflection criteria.

I'd list more reasons why your opinions aren't worth the electrons
they're written with, but I grow bored with correcting such myopia.

R

Chris Lewis wrote:

I don't really remember the details very well. The issue revolves around
the fact that the bottom chord of a truss _may_ want to lift off
interior partitions. I think in some cases, you can simply fasten the
chord down hard to the top plate, perhaps with joist hangers. Others
revolve around techniques on how to dry wall the wall-ceiling joint.

And there's always crown moldings ;-)

The problem is called "Truss Uplift" and is mainly a concern in colder
climates. What happens is that during the winter, the bottom chord remains
relatively warm as it is burried in insulation (e.g.: the trusses in our
house have bottom chords mainly made of 2x5 stock - yes two by five - while
the insulation is at least 14" deep).

The other members of the trusses are up in the cold and they tend to
contract in the cold. This contraction has an upward force on the bottom
chord. This can lift the bottom chord, and your ceiling, away from
partition walls.

Our partitions are framed with steel and were done AFTER the roof was in
place. For steel, the top chanel is attached to the ceiling structure,
which was a concern for the second floor as the trusses span the entire 33'
width of the house. Our method was to use two channels: one attached to
the bottom of the chord, and the other attached to the studs. The stud
channel was inserted into the truss-attached channel. This provides lateral
support while allowing truss lift to not damage the steel stud walls.

This does not prevent any gapping of the drywall between the ceiling and
the walls, but after three winters we have no visible cracking in those
joints. I suppose our trusses have been designed to minimize uplift.

--
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
"I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible"
- Paul Martin - April 30, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: if replying by email, remove "remove." and ".invalid"


*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***

RicodJour wrote:
wrote:
Trusses are another 2000's nightmare. In the old days, there was a
thing called an attic. The ceiling joists that were under that attic
floor were well supported 2X8's or 2X10's and were strong. Now,
houses have no attics. Just a wasted hole above the house, clutterred
with all the sticks that hold together the weak trusses, made out of
2x3's or 2x4's held together with flimsy pieces of tin, and they cost
a fortune, and require costly heavy machinery to lift in place.
Trusses were originally designed for barns, sheds, and warehouses,
where there was no need for a person to walk on them, and no heavy
plaster or sheetrock hanging from them, causing them to bow and warp
from the weight. If you want to use trusses in your house, you will
pay the price, over and over and over. If you had used solid lumber
in the first place, you would not have cracking ceilings, no usable
attic, and a house roof that will self destruct in a heavy wind storm.

The only way to permanently solve your problem is to completely remove
the entire roof structure, clear down to the supporting walls, and
start over, building a proper roof using real lumber.
As long as you have a house roof built with trusses, you are living in
a cheap flimsy box which will collapse and be destroyed as soon as
high winds hit. But remember this.... It wont be just the roof that
comes off, the entire house will be destroyed, the same way a storm
destroys a cardboard box.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Yours just happen to be wrong.
Pretty much everyone of your points above is
Chicken-Little-The-Sky-Is-Falling crap.

If you want attic space, you ask that the trusses be designed with an
attic space.
You want stiffer than normal to reduce cracking (psst - not having an
attic reduces the load up there and reduces cracking), ask for more
stringent deflection criteria.

I'd list more reasons why your opinions aren't worth the electrons
they're written with, but I grow bored with correcting such myopia.

R

Along with several friends I installed my trusses without "costly
heavy machinery to lift in place". These were 44 foot 4-12 standard
trusses and 22 foot 9-12 cathedral trusses.

Costly? Right!!

I doubt Mr. Know It All has ever payed a crew to stick frame a roof.

There are techniques to install drywall on trusses. I have had no
cracking in three years. Outside temperatures ranging from
+100 F to -45 F. with over two feet of snow on the roof.

Here's a picture of the "cheap flimsy box"

http://www.mts.net/~lmlod/Cabinfront6.jpg

The building inspector and I were discussing the construction,
I thought the place could likely survive anything short of a
trip to Kansas. He laughed and said "I'll bet it will come
down in one piece."

I suspect there's a lot of wasted space in Mr. Experts
"attic".

LdB

On Fri, 12 May 2006 17:46:03 -0500, L d'Bonnie wrote:

Here's a picture of the "cheap flimsy box"

http://www.mts.net/~lmlod/Cabinfront6.jpg

Now that is one beautiful cheap flimsy box. I may have to copy the
design! Did you ever include a veranda or porches? I bet the light
in that house is splendid.