King Post? 1

You can call it whatever you want so long as you somehow make your intent clear. I'd probably do one of these things.

1) In the schedule where I call out kung studs, replace 4-2x4 with 1-4x6.

2) Call it out as a column in plan however you normally do that. Then, in the schedule where you normally call out kung studs, replace 4-2x4 with "none" or "use adjacent column".

I think that the best approach for you will depend on how your drawings currently convey this kind of information.

I just use some kind of designation like ST1, ST2 or the actual size itself to avoid using confusing names. You can call it a king stud; it's up to you. Maybe it'll catch on. Like KootK said, it's all about clarity and readability.

Where I practice, it's all called as jack studs and king studs. I often instead of going to a larger single piece of lumber just double or triple up a stud where necessary. My go to is essentially move any displaced studs from the opening into the king stud pack. I've rarely not had it work out when doing that.

King studs and jack studs refer to jambs/posts. Jack studs are the ones under a header/beam, and king studs are the ones that are "continuous." I haven't heard them being used in any other context, which I think OP is trying to do.

I've had contractors call columns in wood stud walls 'king posts'. But yeah, I reserve 'king' for the full height studs on either side of an opening.

jayrod said:

Where I practice, it's all called as jack studs and king studs. I often instead of going to a larger single piece of lumber just double or triple up a stud where necessary. My go to is essentially move any displaced studs from the opening into the king stud pack. I've rarely not had it work out when doing that.

Click to expand...

I like this as a "rule of thumb". Initially, my thought was that this might be a little overkill. But, then I realized you're probably splitting the removed studs onto either side... Which seems about what my intuition says. At least as a starting point which is what a good rule of thumb does.

Thanks for sharing!

Is this not a full height member beside an opening? I had assumed that it was something like the situation shown below, in which case, it's pretty king-studdy save the fact that it's not technically a stud in the conventional sense.

Yeah, I think that we all go multi stud pack before we go solid but I figured that OP has his reasons. Maybe the load is just so high that high grade PSL was needed for axial stress. Or, perhaps, it's one of those situations where we no longer trust the sheathing to brace the king stud and we don't want to take the efficiency hit on the lamination fastening.