Partition Wall Bracing

[CTSeng]

We've had a code discussion around our office about top of wall bracing for interior non-bearing partition walls. I was taught walls should be braced at a maximum of 48" o.c. and thought it was a code requirement but have not been able to find a reference to that effect. Specifically I'm concerned with masonry walls but also apply this rule to metal stud or wood framed partition walls.

Is this a code requirement for non-seismic areas using IBC code or am I being too conservative?

Thanks

 

[SperlingPE]

I have never seen it in a code. I will brace tops of walls that do not extend to structure. Type of bracing and spacing depend on loads to be resisted and type of wall.

 

[Taro]

2003 IBC, Section 1604.8.2 requires concrete and masonry walls to be anchored to floors, roofs and other structural elements that provide lateral support for the wall, even in "non-seismic areas". Brace spacing is not limited to 4 feet, but the wall must be designed to span between braces if a larger spacing is used.

Section 1607.13 requires interior walls and partitions that exceed 6 feet in height to resis a minimum horizontal live load of 5 psf.

Section 1620.3.1 gives additional seismic anchorage requirements for concrete and masonry walls.

 

[haynewp]

As usual, it is somewhat confusing the way it is stated or not stated in the IBC.

All non load bearing partition walls have to be braced to the roof that are over 6' in height (note exception). IBC 1621.2.7

Note that all partition walls > 6' have to be designed to support a horizontal live load according to 1607.13.

Under 1604.8.2 it says masonry walls have to be anchored to floors, roofs, and other elements that provide lateral support. And this section is referenced under 2106.2.1. But it doesn't say that it HAS to be supported to the roof, only that if it is then is has to meet a certain anchorage req'd by 1604.8.2.

So my interpretation is that for non-brg masonry partition walls in non seismic areas, bracing at the top of the wall should follow as req'd in 1621.2.7.

 

[haynewp]

Taro, I didn't see your response before I posted mine. I guess we were writing at about the same time. My post is based on my reading in IBC 2000.