FINISHED IN 2020! Sharward's Partial Garage Conversion

Cripple studs are the short studs above the header. Jack studs, also called trimmers, are the medium-length studs that support the ends of a header. King studs are the outer full-height studs that run on each side of the opening, joined with the jack studs. --Keith :mrgreen:

That 'hammer zone' site page calls 'em either cripple or jack... http://www.hammerzone.com/archives/wind ... raming.htm Wonder? Is there also a 'queen' stud? And do 3 jack studs beat 2 king studs? :roll: Or is that a full house? 'twould be very cumbersome playing poker with these things! K

sharward wrote:

Cripple studs are the short studs above the header. Jack studs, also called trimmers, are the medium-length studs that support the ends of a header. King studs are the outer full-height studs that run on each side of the opening, joined with the jack studs. --Keith :mrgreen:

Luftweg wrote:

That 'hammer zone' site page calls 'em either cripple or jack... http://www.hammerzone.com/archives/wind ... raming.htm

Ummm... No, it doesn't. ;-) But then again, I don't know jack. :lol:

sharward wrote:

http://www.hammerzone.com/archives/wind ... raming.htm ... No, it doesn't. ;-) But then again, I don't know jack. :lol:

I just looked at it again... Figure 1 on that page calls the short studs above the header 'jack studs', and right next to it in parentheses it calls them 'cripple studs'... K

Sorry about that Luftweg -- I see what you mean. The illustration says one thing but the langauge in the paragraphs says another. I've seen a lot of examples of differences in framing terminology depending on region. It can be quite frustrating when trying to learn framing! :shock: Anyway, I passed today's inspection! 8) Although I did learn that I did something wrong. It's not a big enough violation to warrant writing up a correction notice, but still, it's something I should have done differently and I want y'all to learn from my error. My new outer leaf walls are not load bearing. Instead of fastening them directly to the bottom chords of the trusses, I should have used something like Simpson Strong Tie's "STC" roof truss clips... ...which allows the truss chord to rise and fall a bit without cracking the drywall. The inspector assured me that it's only a cosmetic issue so it's nothing to be too worried about... Although I am a tad concerned about the prospect of cracks along the edge of the drywall because we know that could affect isolation! :roll: Rod did write about this in his book, but it was in the context of basement floor trusses, so I mistakenly didn't think much of it. :oops: Anyway, it looks like if I choose not to make a big deal out of this, I'm now free to close up those holes, shore up that first layer of ceiling drywall, and then ultimately add that second layer! :) --Keith :mrgreen:

Keith, In a conversation I had with building inspector a while ago (before I realized how a truss system bears its weight) I presented a load bearing wall under several trusses to him... he then explained a truss system to me, a whole bunch of other good stuff AND strongly suggested to leave a 1/4" space between bottom of truss and the top plate of non load bearing wall/partition wall. He suggested using a 1/4" peice of wood (a shim?) to get the "space". Not leaving the space may crack drywall like you said (over a long period of time)... or worst case it can take the weight of the truss system in the wrong place, somewhere in the middle and truss weight is suppose to bear at it's ends. I have no idea how bad of a mistake this coud be. I've heard lot's of people have had drywall in there house has cracked as a result of no spacing, I've not heard of a truss failing BUT if the truss were under stress in a earth quake or hurricane, I wonder what would happen? All that being said I remember the inspector telling me same as you just got, that it did not matter for code. Oh well when I place my wall under my truss I am leaving a space and I'm glad you posted those simpson ties, which looks like a much better method than using a shim and pounding nails up through top plate into truss. BTW I'm muttering up the strength to get to work tommorow and prep for cutting my concrete block wall. I've been putting off outside work or work in the garage because... we've not been getting "heat waves" here in Florida, it's just damn hot & humid all day long, it's been like this for a month now... bet ya I'll sweat of 5 pounds tommorow. Marc :D

Great points, Marc. I asked specifically if there was any risk to the integrity of the trusses, and he said no -- it was just cosmetic. Unless Rod strolls in here and blows his whistle, I'm going to assume everything will be fine and plan to move forward! 8) --Keith :mrgreen:

Cool that you passed the inspection! Anyway, the load-bearing/non-load-bearing issue has concerned myself on my project too... Although with trusses it can be a far more important structural issue for ABOVE the loads, due to the inherent design of them (and no, I'm not gonna pretend that I know the engineering specifics of this)... Even with me having dimensional lumber joists above my room, I am still concerned -- NOT because I might be harming anything in the loading of those joists (the sistered and steel flanged ones)... But rather I am concerned with carrying any additional weight on the concrete floor in a concentrated 'linear' load... In other words, if I allowed a tight, solid connection from floor joist (through top plates, studs, and bottom plates) to the concrete floor, I would be allowing (some of?) the live load of the above floor to dynamically ADD to the already larger pressures that the heavily loaded outer-leaf walls will have on the concrete floor. In fact, in steel curtain-wall framing, a 'deflection track' appears to be often added to prevent buckling of the steel stud wall (and maybe even to avoid web crippling?). http://www.ssma.com/tn03.pdf http://www.ssma.com/tn01.pdf Actually, my PE has expressed concerns to me about 'point' loads on my concrete floor, particularly from the header/lintels, which will be supporting half the weight of the inner-leaf ceiling -- and concenrating that weight through columns to the concrete floor. (my current 'plan' to compensate for that is to somehow 'spread out' the load, possibly with some heavy gauge steel plates on top of the wooden bottom plates (maybe even on top of the top plates too!)... Yet, with the apparent nature of the thickness of my floor, and the substrate below it (remember the sump pit excavation), I'm tending to be a bit less concerned with any 'weakness' there -- is this a mistake? btw, the PE has not seen what was in the hole, or the thickness of the concrete). Regardless, I believe that any simple way of avoiding extra loading on the basement concrete floor from the live or dead loads of the above structure, should be a desirable thing, no? With that said, I will likely be using a 'deflection track' above the top plates of the outer-leaf wall. Very simply, a 3 5/8 inch steel track would be screwed into the bottom of the doubled-joists, with the flanges pointing downward; then the upper wood top plate would 'nest' between those track flanges; a few screws with washers would put in enlarged holes through the top plate and deflection track, and into the joists; a gap is left between the deflection track and the top plate -- this would allow a lateral support of the top plate to the joists, BUT also allow isolation from vertical deflection of the joists.... What I don't understand is why we are often told that a basement floor may be weak (due to voiding below it, or insufficient thickness or reinforcement), BUT that it's okay to allow the additional live loads of the above floor to bear down through the floor joists (and a 'non-bearing wall') and impose on that concrete floor?... especially when it can easily be avoided... K

sharward wrote:

.....I passed today's inspection!.... My new outer leaf walls are not load bearing. Instead of fastening them directly to the bottom chords of the trusses, I should have used something like http://www.simpsonstrongtie.com/product ... TC_PT.html ...which allows the truss chord to rise and fall a bit without cracking the drywall... Rod did write about this in his book, but it was in the context of basement floor trusses, so I mistakenly didn't think much of it. :oops:

That's the main reason I poured new concrete and used so much rebar. 8) Just remember that concrete can only be as strong as the base on which it sits. OK, that's probably not stated very accurately -- but the point is, if you have a bad base (voids, etc.), the concrete could fail at that point if it is subjected to a heavy load. Recall that in my case, a neighbor two doors away from me had to have a good portion of his garage repoured a few years ago because some of it sank and some of it lifted. The builder (actually, the original concrete contractor) took care of it. That to me was proof that, in my subdivision, it is entirely possible that the base under the concrete slabs in the garages may not be done very well. I was also led to believe there was at least a steel mesh in my slab, which was not true. In short, I'm very glad that I poured a new slab and poured a new foundation for my outer leaf, but I certainly understand your aversion to doing that in your basement.

Luftweg wrote:

What I don't understand is why we are often told that a basement floor may be weak (due to voiding below it, or insufficient thickness or reinforcement), BUT that it's okay to allow the additional live loads of the above floor to bear down through the floor joists (and a 'non-bearing wall') and impose on that concrete floor?... especially when it can easily be avoided...

Hmmm... :roll: ...Well, you never heard from me that it would be OK without qualification. Actually, if indeed it is a non load bearing wall and those truss clips are used, no live load would be transferred to the wall at all. I guess the point of all of this is, as you apparently already know and appreciate, don't assume anything.

sharward wrote:

Luftweg wrote:

What I don't understand is why we are often told that a basement floor may be weak (due to voiding below it, or insufficient thickness or reinforcement), BUT that it's okay to allow the additional live loads of the above floor to bear down through the floor joists (and a 'non-bearing wall') and impose on that concrete floor?... especially when it can easily be avoided...

Hmmm... :roll: ...Well, you never heard from me that it would be OK without qualification.

Yes, I've never heard that from you, and would never expect that -- since you seem to be extra cautious, and not capricious.... Actually, I was never told directly that it was alright to put additional weight on the concrete... Rather however, I had been told that I should want to firmly attach the outer-leaf wall to the above joists... so, indirectly, this would have meant allowing the deflection of the joists under live load to impinge on the wall -- and thus ultimately the concrete floor... The part that was considered 'okay' was that it didn't affect the way the joists carried the load, and not that the live load would end up on the concrete... It was probably my fault for not being clear about my concerns, and not wording my questions correctly... Again, I'm not worried about interferring with the joists' carrying the live load; I am worried about putting that dynamic load on the concrete floor.. (and maybe even with settling, part of the dead load as well?) The deflection track is a straight-foward idea, and seems easily exectued as well.... Any way to prevent extra weight on the concrete floor seems desirable... thanx, K

I ordered a case of Green Glue today -- hopefully ground shipment will arrive before next weekend, when I hope to work on the 2nd layer of drywall! :shock: I left voice mail for them this morning but I didn't get a return call. :( I bought a five pound box of 2 1/2" course threaded screws, so I'm ready to reinforce that first layer of drywall on the ceiling this weekend. Hopefully I'll get a hand from someone with a truck or van so that I can get a couple of 4 x 8 sheets of 5/8" drywall to the house to patch up those holes... :roll: --Keith :mrgreen:

My landscaper buddy came through today, big time! After taking care of my hard, we emptied his truck, headed to Home Depot, and bought 20 sheets of 4' x 8' x 5/8" drywall! I took the legs off that dining room table because I wasn't comfortable putting a ton (literally) of weight on it. :roll: Isn't it awesome that I can fit two cars, plus this stack, plus a room under construction in my garage, and still be able to walk around? 8) This is enough not only to patch up those holes overhead, but to add that second layer, plus add three layers to the south wall (the shear wall with the "contractor graffiti" on it). Remember, that's actually going to be a dreaded three leaf wall. I didn't have the luxury of beefing up that wall because of it's a shear wall with nails riviting the edges 2" apart from one another. :roll: In the unlikely event that all my overkill isn't good enough, when all is said and done, I'll add a layer of drywall to my office (the third leaf) with Green Glue, and that should do the trick. Come on, Green Glue! Get here!! :lol: --Keith :mrgreen:

Truss uplift as it affects drywall cracking is covered on page 154 of Myron Ferguson's "Drywall" (catchy title, huh?) and Stanley's "Complete Drywall" (completely catchy title :=) on page 79, both of which are very useful books and NEITHER of which should be followed for their limited sound isolation techniques - the Stanley book actually shows a pic of RC being installed upside down on a wall (the open side should be UP except for the very botttom strip, which is easier fastened the other way) - this book also recommends "sound board" for the first layer, and "gluing and screwing the second layer of drywall to the first instead of to studs" as ways of "gaining additional isolation" - as we've learned here (hopefully) gluing layers of drywall with actual GLUE, mainly lowers coincidence frequency and makes the wall worse instead of better :roll: Still, either book is a valuable resource (for BASIC drywalling) as long as you don't read any of the "sound isolation" parts :? As to load bearing, I wouldn't "press fit" ANY new wall in an existing retrofit - there's no need unless these are inner walls that will be supporting inner ceiling joists. In the case of an inner wall supporting separate ceilings, a typical 12 foot wide room with ceiling joists supported on stud frames and 2 layers of 5/8 wallboard on one side of each frame (wall and ceiling) will exert about 115 pounds on the floor per lineal foot of wall (half the ceiling weight per running foot and ALL the weight of 1 lineal foot of the wall) - This equates to about 345 PSF, considering 2x4 plates. A typical car weighs around 3000 pounds and puts ALL its weight on 4 tires, each of which has a "footprint" of about 50 square inches, or 0.347 square feet, for a PSF point load of around 2100 pounds. I know Rod has cautioned against using this logic, and I'm not against "overkill" - still, considering the above comparisons it doesn't seem like a problem. I'm considering a "temporarily permanent" "Idea" studio/video editing suite in my existing garage (built by a moron) with a crappy slab, and the most I'll do for wall support (these will NOT be supporting any ceiling weight though) is possibly using DOUBLE sole plates to spread the point loads of individual studs a bit. This project may not happen until the 2-story addition goes in BEHIND this garage, at which time I'm seriously considering ripping the entire roof off of that portion of the "crackerbox palace" so I can get vaulted ceilings over the garage/"studio B" part - The lower half of the addition will be our master bedroom, so there will be an airlock door between BR and "Studio B" for those "3 AM, can't sleep, wanna get song idea recorded so I don't lose it" times :roll: - The build would include a decent CR, drum and vox booth so I can have the essentials for doing Industrial Video's (because they actually PAY :mrgreen: ) Point is (if there is one) this crappy slab has been there since 1975 and has settled/cracked/been loaded with more weight than my interior walls will exert - so double sole plates, possibly inner walls with inner ceiling joists (if I rip off the old roof) and concrete FixAll for the cracks, and I doubt very much if I'll be slab sawing/pouring new footings down the center of it at this time. Sorry for the ramble, now I gotta go clean out said garage and throw about half the crap away :lol: Steve

knightfly wrote:

In the case of an inner wall supporting separate ceilings, a typical 12 foot wide room with ceiling joists supported on stud frames and 2 layers of 5/8 wallboard on one side of each frame (wall and ceiling) will exert about 115 pounds on the floor per lineal foot of wall (half the ceiling weight per running foot and ALL the weight of 1 lineal foot of the wall) - This equates to about 345 PSF, considering 2x4 plates.

Steve: Thanx for the insight. I had previously done similar calculations for my room project, and they seem to concur with yours (or at least be in the ballpark, due to some design differences)... My biggest fear was not really the linear weights of the walls supporting the inner-leaf ceiling, BUT the 2 point loads of the lintel/header posts (the header effectively replaces the fourth wall), each of which would potentially carry 1/4 of the entire ceiling/joist (however, the lintel/header is designed to be able to carry more than the whole ceiling -- as a safety factor).

knightfly wrote:

A typical car weighs around 3000 pounds and puts ALL its weight on 4 tires, each of which has a "footprint" of about 50 square inches, or 0.347 square feet, for a PSF point load of around 2100 pounds. I know Rod has cautioned against using this logic, and I'm not against "overkill" - still, considering the above comparisons it doesn't seem like a problem.

I think your point here is: that the tire foot print exerts a far greater localized load on the floor than any element of the room ever could -- and so if the car hasn't broken the floor up, why would the walls of the room? Is this correct.... I would agree with that (except I'm a bit wondering about whether the tires being 'softer' is any significant factor over the 'hard' edges of the wall bottom's?)...

knightfly wrote:

...possibly using DOUBLE sole plates to spread the point loads of individual studs a bit.

I had proposed at least doubling the base plates for that very same reason... How effective would this be for, say, the point loads of the header/lintels? (And with people adding up to 3 layers of drywall on a leaf, I would think that it almost should be a matter of course to use 2 baseplates, even just for the stud point loads, no?) Other ideas I thought and proposed (with some agreement by the PE) to spread the load were: to use long thick gauge steel plates under the lintel/header (on top of the top plates); nesting the top and/or bottom plates in heavy gauge steel track, for a considerable length of the wall; using diagonally placed cross-bracing alongside the posts of the lintel....

knightfly wrote:

Point is (if there is one) this crappy slab has been there since 1975 and has settled/cracked/been loaded with more weight than my interior walls will exert - so double sole plates, possibly inner walls with inner ceiling joists (if I rip off the old roof) and concrete FixAll for the cracks, and I doubt very much if I'll be slab sawing/pouring new footings down the center of it at this time.

Steve, I'm not sure I get what you're meaning? Do you mean that you think the slab is plenty strong enough, or is it that you don't care if it lasts, or can't be bothered to do footings, etc.? thanx, K PS... sorry, I didn't mean to hijack the thread....

I don't think Keith cares, it just ups his thread views :lol: On the don't care/don't need question, I was probably premature; there's still a good chance I'll end up ripping off the entire roof, pouring footings outside the originals, and doing a vaulted ceiling over that garage which will then meet up with the second story of a 20x24 rear addition - if that's what happens, it'll give me 34x22 for a "studio B" which will suffice til I make enough for the big one on the other end of the house. If all that comes about, I'll be doing a "mega-Keith" on my garage (after the new free-standing one is built out front) I don't think soft tires would make much diff; it's still the same amount of weight in about the same footprint. Are you saying that your lintels (2) will be supporting an entire wall on one side with a ceiling resting on top, or what? STeve

knightfly wrote:

....Are you saying that your lintels (2) will be supporting an entire wall on one side with a ceiling resting on top, or what? STeve

The lintel/header would only be supporting one end of the ceiling joists (with its layers), with no wall at all (except to cover the lintel itself); the opposite side would have a full stud wall to carry the joists... There will actually be 2 lintel/headers; the other one would be similar, but the span of the joists, and the span of the header would be significantly shorter... The reason for the lintels is to divide the length of the room in 2 pieces, and allow it to remain as one open room isolating the entire inner ceiling from the structure above (the lintels would skirt or chase the centerbeam and the main HVAC duct of the ABOVE floor (not the studio-room)). The 'big' lintel would be 12' 1" long, and be supporting about 11' 6" long joists; It's going to be two back-to-back 16 gauge 2 by 8 inch (actual) steel studs, boxed with two 16 gauge 2 by 8 inch tracks, and a 2 by 4 inch track as extra compression flange (and possibly one as a tension flange too)... So, it's in effect a double-boxed header. Header span tables have shown just the back-to-back assembly to be good for 411 plf, at 12 foot length; this means it would safely hold 12 x 411 = 4932 pounds (far more than enough). Actually, that's quite conservative, since it's simply only based on double the values for a single member; joining back-to-back more than doubles the 'true' capacity (according to an American Iron and Steel Institute article from 1997) due to the creation of an 'I' shape which greatly helps support the web and flanges; forming a double-box increases strength further. Not really worried about the steel holding the ceiling; I am worried about how to get the weight to the concrete floor and avoid major point loads.... The PE said "I wouldn't do it that way; I would make footings for posts", but also that it "may be okay without it too -- at least for a long time..." I think what has been scaring me is that I've been perhaps 'over estimating' the amount of weight that would end up on the lintels, and eventually making it to the concrete... In reality, it would seem, the lintel would only be carrying half of the weight of the ceiling (with the opposite end wall holding the other half), but I wanted it to be strong enough to carry the whole thing -- for added safety factor. So, each lintel/header support would really be carrying 1/4 the weight of the ceiling.... I could add a center support to the lintel/header to reduce that to about 1/3 I suppose? God, if I knew that the floor concrete and substrate below it are anything like what the sump excavation revealed, I wouldn't have an ounce of worry... K

knightfly wrote:

. . . I'll be doing a "mega-Keith" . . .

No comment -- I just thought it beared repeating. ;-) OK, more progress to report. I'm kicking butt!! :twisted: Look, ma -- no more gaping holes along my new outer leaf walls! As you can see, I divided the outer area into three separate pieces, and the inner area into two, which I was then able to put up on my own. The center piece on the outside was the most challenging due to its size and weight. Each time I installed a piece, I first nailed a 2x4 scrap to the frame about an inch from the top, which I was then able to use as a little "support shelf" to hold up one long edge while I attached the other end with screws. Not too shabby I suppose... :roll: ...It's admittedly sloppier than the original ceiling -- but the inside won't be seen at all and the outside will only be visible in the garage until someday when the garage walls and ceiling get textured and painted. I'm actually considering hiring out a texturing job for both the room and the garage when I get to that point in the cnstruction. 8) I'll need to do another round of joint compound, at which time I'll also tape the seams. We now return you to your regularly scheduled hijacking! ;-) :lol: --Keith :mrgreen:

Hi Keith, Down here we tape and mud in the first pass and then mud again, then use a finishing compound to seal the joint for sanding. Not sure why you are doing it differentlly up there (or perhaps I misunderstood your post) but the tape should be applied with the first pass of plaster (thats how we do it anyway). JohnG

Nah, I just did it wrong. :oops: Ah well, that's OK -- this part is the least critical. I'll make sure to do everything right on the next go-around and I'll make an effort to undo some of the goof on this one. Thanks for setting me straight, John! 8) --Keith :mrgreen:

Keith, compared with some of the things I have done wrong on my project this is nothing. Keep up the good work - this things going to be a vault when you're done!! JohnG

Thanks for the kind words, John. :-) Humbled... Ted from Green Glue called me back today. He's just as gracious on the phone as he is on the Studiotips forum. 8) I told him he should spend some time here too -- and I see that he has started doing so already! I had a number of options to get the product delivered in time for this weekend, but I instead chose to let the stuff come on its own schedule and I'll do the ceiling drywall after it arrives, which will probably be next week (not this weekend). That will give me a chance to add screws to the first layer, and maybe even start adding layers to that south shear wall. --Keith :mrgreen:

Not much to report, but I did snap chalk lines on the existing ceiling to mark the location of the truss chords. That should make it a lot easier to be on target with my screws. BTW, snapping chalk lines on the ceiling working solo is rather time consuming! :x Climb ladder, attach end of string, crawl down ladder, move ladder, climb ladder pull string, snap, crawl down ladder, lather, rinse, repeat 8 times. :roll: --Keith :mrgreen:

I picked up the drywall lifter today (Thanks, Stick! 8)) for some practice lifting, and maybe a bit of productive drywall work on the ceiling if things go well. We received a 24"w x 24"d x 8'h cabinet from Mrs. Sharward's parents on Friday -- they didn't have space for it in their garage after rearranging things to make room for another vehicle. I spent the afternoon installing it (along with another one I picked up at Home Depot) and rearranging some stuff in the garage so that there's nothing in my way to play with drywall tomorrow... Or perhaps I was proccrastinating...? ;-) --Keith :mrgreen:

cleaning up shop is never procrastination, i find for every hour i spend organizing my tools, i save myself countless hours of annoying work slowed down by losing things, tripping over stuff, swearing, etc...

True enough, John! Of course, actual progress is more exciting. I had hoped to have something "progressive" to show today, but alas, I wasn't able. I did take the drywall lifter that I borrowed from Stick out of the car today and I got some practice putting it together and taking it apart. That may seem kind of lame, but it is an awfully heavy piece of machinery and incorrect use and/or assembly could cause a major injury or even death, so it pays to know how to operate the thing. I even read the f&#*ing manual! Unfortunately, the lifter won't roll close enough to my south wall due to the gap around the slab... :roll: ...That's kind of what I expected. I also fixed a couple of items on the lifter. The rubber feet on the backstop were missing, so I replaced them. Also, the handle on the winch was replaced with a makeshift one that didn't roll when gripped, so I concocted a new makeshift handle that does roll. :) So, it looks like I'll be going to Plan B on that wall -- good old fashioned "you hold the panel up while I drive the screws" method. :roll: --Keith :mrgreen: