I purchased a home about a month and a half ago and am looking to utilize space in the basement a little more efficiently. The house has LVLs and posts running north and south until it gets to about 12 feet from the north end of the home, where the LVL is intersected by LVLs running east and west. This intersection is where my question arises. There was an oddly shaped closet that ran at a 45 degree angle to these LVLs. I figured it was non-load bearing until I took the drywall off and saw another LVL at the top. My question is is there any way to tell if the 2x4 wall is actually there for support without having access to the drawings? Are LVLs ever held only by brackets? For what it’s worth, the 2x4 wall does not have a double top plate. I’m not sure if that means anything or not. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
LVL support 1
- Thread starter Althoff
- Start date
Is there a gap between the wall and the beam, or the wall and the floor?
LVLs are held only by brackets all the time, they're called hangers and there are many different configurations for them. It would be unlikely that the wall with a single top plate and no built-up pack of studs directly below the beam, would be intentionally load bearing.
I say intentionally, because it may not have been the designer's intent for the wall to bear load. However, if not constructed with the appropriate slip joints between the wall and the beam, it could be taking load.
LVLs are held only by brackets all the time, they're called hangers and there are many different configurations for them. It would be unlikely that the wall with a single top plate and no built-up pack of studs directly below the beam, would be intentionally load bearing.
I say intentionally, because it may not have been the designer's intent for the wall to bear load. However, if not constructed with the appropriate slip joints between the wall and the beam, it could be taking load.
- Thread starter
- #3
I don’t see any gaps on the top or bottom of the wall. I’ve attached an image of one of the hangers, not sure if you’re able to view it. The bottom of it almost appears to have dented the top of the 2x4, like the 2x4 was put into place after the beam was there. How would I know if the proper slip joints are present?
-
1
- #4
I wouldn't be overly surprised if the wall wasn't jammed in there, but rather was provided with the appropriate slip joints, but then either by beam deflection, or slab heaving, caused the wall to be load bearing as it would be the stiffer load path.
Generally speaking there are 2 ways to create a slip joint:
1) Provide a slip joint at the top of the wall that consists of a gap between the wall top plate and the underside of structure above. The connection between the wall and the structure above usually consists of partially installed nails (not driven home) that would allow the wall to move up and down but still provide lateral support for the wall, or via metal deflection clips.
2) Provide a slip joint at the bottom of the wall that consists of a gap between the wall bottom plate and the slab. The connection to the floor then consists of partially installed nails or screws that allow the wall to move with the structure above, or the slab to move, without pushing up on the structure above while still providing lateral support for the bottom of wall.
If there was a slip joint originally provided at the top, or bottom, I would expect to see fasteners that are sticking out of the plates indicating that the gap originally provided has been closed either via the structure above deflecting downwards or the slab below heaving upwards.
It does appear based on that picture that the LVL directly above the wall is supported by the beam behind the drywall(The metal hanger flanges with the paint on them would generally be installed on the supporting beam).
Again, it's possible that the wall wasn't intended on being load bearing, but without the appropriate detailing it may be loadbearing now. Removal of the wall in that situation (not intended on being load bearing) wouldn't necessarily result in a structural failure. It may however cause additional deflection of the structure above due to the loss of the additional support. This additional deflection may cause damage to finishes above.
Generally speaking there are 2 ways to create a slip joint:
1) Provide a slip joint at the top of the wall that consists of a gap between the wall top plate and the underside of structure above. The connection between the wall and the structure above usually consists of partially installed nails (not driven home) that would allow the wall to move up and down but still provide lateral support for the wall, or via metal deflection clips.
2) Provide a slip joint at the bottom of the wall that consists of a gap between the wall bottom plate and the slab. The connection to the floor then consists of partially installed nails or screws that allow the wall to move with the structure above, or the slab to move, without pushing up on the structure above while still providing lateral support for the bottom of wall.
If there was a slip joint originally provided at the top, or bottom, I would expect to see fasteners that are sticking out of the plates indicating that the gap originally provided has been closed either via the structure above deflecting downwards or the slab below heaving upwards.
It does appear based on that picture that the LVL directly above the wall is supported by the beam behind the drywall(The metal hanger flanges with the paint on them would generally be installed on the supporting beam).
Again, it's possible that the wall wasn't intended on being load bearing, but without the appropriate detailing it may be loadbearing now. Removal of the wall in that situation (not intended on being load bearing) wouldn't necessarily result in a structural failure. It may however cause additional deflection of the structure above due to the loss of the additional support. This additional deflection may cause damage to finishes above.
- Thread starter
- #5
Thanks so much for your help. Those hangers are indeed attached to the other beam. I did forget to mention in the previous post that there appears to be anchors in the wall in the form of a washer against the bottom plate and a nail that is not driven all the way down but instead has a little red spacer sitting on top of the washer that kind of resembles a gear. This sounds like what you are describing.
So it sounds like from what you’re saying that there are no safety concerns with removing the 2x4 wall, there could just possibly be some shifting upstairs; is that correct? Would it be wise or adequate to replace this wall with and equivalent number of 4x4s sitting directly on the concrete to prevent some of this possible deflection?
So it sounds like from what you’re saying that there are no safety concerns with removing the 2x4 wall, there could just possibly be some shifting upstairs; is that correct? Would it be wise or adequate to replace this wall with and equivalent number of 4x4s sitting directly on the concrete to prevent some of this possible deflection?
Personally I would recommend against installing any supports underneath of the LVL. Doing so would result in the potential for slab heaving pushing upwards on the structure above with the risk of causing significant damage to finishes above. I recently had to review a house where heaving of the basement slab, and improperly installed basement walls (no slip joists) caused the main floor non-loadbearing demising walls to punch through the ceiling drywall.
And unfortunately for that homeowner, it is not typically covered by home insurance.
And unfortunately for that homeowner, it is not typically covered by home insurance.
- Thread starter
- #7
One other item I failed to include is that the hanger opposite of the one in the pic is not nailed to the beam in question on the visible side. I can’t speak for the other side as I have not opened it up yet. Did someone just forget to put nails in there or was that intentional? Thought I better ask before driving some nails in.
I wouldn't consider that intentional, generally speaking all holes are there for a reason. There are a few holes from the manufacturing process that are not intended for nails, but they are typically clearly marked as such.
Because I haven't said it specifically yet, guidance from a stranger on the internet (me in this instance) should only be used for initial feasibility type decisions. You should contact a local structural engineer that can come by and review the project in person and provide more site specific type information.
Because I haven't said it specifically yet, guidance from a stranger on the internet (me in this instance) should only be used for initial feasibility type decisions. You should contact a local structural engineer that can come by and review the project in person and provide more site specific type information.
- Thread starter
- #9
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question