# Support a partition wall.



## ICE (Mar 10, 2012)

Where in the code, either 2009 IBC or IRC is there a requirement for the support of a non-bearing partition wall?      Non-bearing being defined as a wall that supports less than 100 lbs. per lineal foot.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 10, 2012)

1607.5 Partition loads. In office buildings and in other buildings where partition locations are subject to change, provisions for partition weight shall be made, whether or not partitions are shown on the construction documents, unless the specified live load exceeds 80 psf (3.83 kN/m2). The partition load shall not be less than a uniformly distributed live load of 15 psf (0.74 kN/m2).

1607.13 Interior walls and partitions. Interior walls and partitions that exceed 6 feet (1829 mm) in height, including their finish materials, shall have adequate strength to resist the loads to which they are subjected but not less than a horizontal load of 5 psf (0.240 kN/m2).

SECTION 2308 CONVENTIONAL LIGHT-FRAME CONSTRUCTION

2308.1 General. ....Interior nonload-bearing partitions, ceilings and curtain walls of conventional light-frame construction are not subject to the limitations of this section....

2308.9.2.3 Nonbearing walls and partitions. In nonbearing walls and partitions, studs shall be spaced not

more than 28 inches (711 mm) o.c. and are permitted to be set with the long dimension parallel to the wall. Interior nonbearing partitions shall be capped with no less than a single top plate installed to provide overlapping at corners and at intersections with other walls and partitions.

The plate shall be continuously tied at joints by solid blocking at least 16 inches (406 mm) in length and

equal in size to the plate or by liz-inch by 11/ 2-inch (12.7 mm by 38 mm) metal ties with spliced sections fastened with two 16d nails on each side of the joint.


----------



## ICE (Mar 10, 2012)

Thanks Mark,

What I am looking for is justification for requiring two floor joists under a partition wall so that there is something to nail the bottom plate to other than just the sheathing.  You may wonder, Why two?  That's so they will hit something with the nails.   And there is also a bit of concern for the weight considering that a wall with 99 lbs. per foot is plenty heavy with little support.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 10, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Thanks Mark,What I am looking for is justification for requiring two floor joists under a partition wall so that there is something to nail the bottom plate to other than just the sheathing.  You may wonder, Why two?  That's so they will hit something with the nails.   And there is also a bit of concern for the weight considering that a wall with 99 lbs. per foot is plenty heavy with little support.


Not required for nonbearing


----------



## ICE (Mar 10, 2012)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Not required for nonbearing


Ain't that a bitch?


----------



## fatboy (Mar 11, 2012)

I agree, not required. May or may not be a bitch.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 11, 2012)

> 1607.13 Interior walls and partitions. Interior walls and partitions that exceed 6 feet (1829 mm) in height, including their finish materials, shall have adequate strength to resist the loads to which they are subjected but not less than a horizontal load of 5 psf (0.240 kN/m2).


Ice

We use this one all the time for requiring seismic details on interior partions over 6 ft tall that are anchored at the top . Never had an Arch or Engineer require anything other than nails into the floor sheathing at the bottom.

BTW zone "D"


----------



## mtlogcabin (Mar 11, 2012)

I meant NOT anchored at the top

Sure miss the edit function


----------



## ICE (Mar 11, 2012)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> IceWe use this one all the time for requiring seismic details on interior partitions over 6 ft tall that are anchored at the top . *Never had an Arch or Engineer require anything other than nails into the floor sheathing at the bottom.*
> 
> BTW zone "D"


Never had an architect or engineer require anything.  Let's say I did and it was 16d-16"oc.  Then I would wonder, "Nailed to what exactly."  5/8" plywood, 3/4"plywood, bridging, a floor joist?  So far, according to the code, nothing is required.  It must be something more than friction.

The prevailing approach to code enforcement is that if it is not spelled out in the code, it's hands off by an inspector.  As fatboy said, it may or may not be a bitch.  I could be a nothing more than the back of a closet or it might be a long hallway with a bunch of doors.  The occupant may never place a piano against the wall but his 300 gallon aquarium is leaning.

In the pictures below you see a hole where a foundation vent will be placed.  The second picture shows a vent hole with a flat block to support the floor sheathing.  Just like the floor joist under a NB partition, that block is not required by the code.







Note the header across the underfloor access.  That's not required by the code either.


----------



## Frank (Mar 11, 2012)

Not required and non-issue.

16" oc 1/2" drywall both sides wood stud wall weighs about 33 pounds per linier ft.

The wall also provides its own rigidity--after a fire I have seen nonbearing walls as much as 1-2 inches above a still intact but bouncy floor due to fire damage to the joists below.

Nailing the bottom plate to the structural wood product below provides adequate lateral resistance for the below 5 psf lateral loading.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 11, 2012)

I am more concerned about the notch in the bottom of the joist for the drain pipe.

I would say that you could require some support for the plywood at the perimeter vent when the rim joist is parallel to the floof joists.

Am not concerned about the non bearing wall sill plate connection to the floor.  In the absense of backing the nails into the prywood can probbly prevent failure under the out of plain loads specified in the code.  Cheaper than adding extra joists would be to drive the nails from the underside of the plywood into the sill plate.  I would expect that typical plywood sheathing to be capable of resisting the weight of the wall.


----------



## mark handler (Mar 11, 2012)

I Agree Mark


----------



## ICE (Mar 11, 2012)

:devil The inspector is willing to let an engineer and an architect nail the wall from under the floor but the carpenter isn't.


----------



## ICE (Mar 12, 2012)

I discussed this topic with my structural engineer today.  He tells me that plywood isn't meant to carry a point load and support is required.  The support can be joists or blocks.  I prefer joists because there is a better chance of hitting something with nails.  Flat blocks at 16" OC works.  As far as nailing the plate is concerned, it doesn't take much but plywood isn't meant to hold nails so hitting the joist/blocks counts.


----------



## KZQuixote (Mar 12, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> I discussed this topic with my structural engineer today.  He tells me that plywood isn't meant to carry a point load and support is required.  The support can be joists or blocks.  I prefer joists because there is a better chance of hitting something with nails.  Flat blocks at 16" OC works.  As far as nailing the plate is concerned, it doesn't take much but plywood isn't meant to hold nails so hitting the joist/blocks counts.


I say now, I mean,* I say now! *

Can we have a moment of silence while the International Ice Code spontaneously generates a new code section requiring ladder blocking under non-bearing partitions.

Of course because this new section will be uniformly enforced across his concrete jungle, it'll be OK!

FogHorn


----------



## Architect1281 (Mar 12, 2012)

Ice I know where and why your thinking quality and method of construction

this question is answered on fig 30 here http://www.awc.org/pdf/wcd1-300.pdf

The awc wfcm manuals are how to do it right not necessarily to the minimum code


----------



## Architect1281 (Mar 12, 2012)

Plywood sheathing design and diaphram loads per the APA 3/4 T&G sturd-i-floor rating is good to 100 PSI


----------



## ICE (Mar 12, 2012)

Architect1281 said:
			
		

> Ice I know where and why your thinking quality and method of construction this question is answered on fig 30 here http://www.awc.org/pdf/wcd1-300.pdf
> 
> The awc wfcm manuals are how to do it right not necessarily to the minimum code


Hey! Ya gotta trust Americans.  I like the book, thanks friend. I'm not crazy after all.  Well the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, so maybe I am. Crazy that is.


----------



## ICE (Mar 12, 2012)

KZQuixote said:
			
		

> I say now, I mean,* I say now! *Can we have a moment of silence while the International Ice Code spontaneously generates a new code section requiring ladder blocking under non-bearing partitions.
> 
> Of course because this new section will be uniformly enforced across his concrete jungle, it'll be OK!
> 
> FogHorn


One Eye you do get around don't you.  We all pretty much agreed that there is no code for that.  And could you get the code straight please. It is not International.  It is Intergalactic. Your sister Texasbo named it that because she didn't want to be left out.  Big surprise, that one.  Y'all thought Scooter was a guy huh. I know...I was just as surprised as you are.  Best part is, she wanted to say prophylactic code because she thinks my name is Dick.  A head that big you would figure that the brain was a workhorse. What a disappointment; don't you agree?

Tiger


----------



## Big Mac (Mar 13, 2012)

Check out Section 2308.3.2 of the 2012 IBC


----------

