16"OC or 24"OC Framing?

[Jakemedic]

I apologize if this was covered already, but for what it is worth, here is my response. I built a new workshop. The Amish guy recommended 24” on center. I spoke with a friend who is a contractor and he thought that the only benefit to 24” centers is the builder. No benefit to the owner and in fact it would make for a much less stable building.

With that said, I opted for a full foundation and post frame construction. Having 8’ bays for insulation was fantastic. I located and used 8’ wide R19 insulation which limited the thermal breaks associated with stud walls. Hanging new work boxes was a bit of a problem, but I did manage once I figured out just how to accomplish it. I opted for 3/4” plywood on the inside and tin for the ceiling and last 2‘ of the walls. The building is tight, sturdy and overall I am quite pleased with the outcome.

Have fun with your build and let us know how you proceeded.

 

[Jinks]

As close to the Gulf as you are I'd check hurricane wind codes in your area, & even if they allow 24" OC I'd probably go 16" & add hurricane clips to everything.

 

[Minuteman305]

I know someone who has 24" O/C framing in their house, with a 9.5 ft ceiling, and I think it's terrible. Every time you close a door, you see the entire wall shake, because there's just not enough mass and rigidity in the wall to restrict impact. I'm talking about closing solid doors, like the ones leading to a garage.

Also, the 24" spacing also allows the drywall to act even more hollow, letting noise pass through (and even accentuate like a speaker). If you're on the backside of a drawer or microwave, every time you close that door it sounds like you're slamming the drawer (from the other side of the wall).

24" also restricts the amount of stuff you can hang from studs - for example, I hang my TV wall mounts from two studs 16" O/C. If you're at 24" O/C, you have to go to a much larger backplate (which I don't like).

It's also a little strange to know that the drywall is a little more "fragile". I believe you said this may be a retirement place for you, but still...knowing that any small mistake (a kick, moving furniture, or a grandchild running around on their plastic pedal bike) might mean you having a huge hole to repair.

The first two out of the four above are the ones that really bug me. From experience, I would definitely recommend going to a standard 16" O/C. It's just not worth the cost savings, which won't be much anyway unless you have some really long wall lengths. For most average length walls that will range anywhere from 10 to 20 ft, you may save maybe a couple of studs?

I think I have to agree with this post.

A couple of things though:
1. Its not clear how force is transferred from the door to the walls. What is clear, is how force is transferred from the weights above to the studs to the foundation.
2. Stronger structural around the doors, especially front doors is a must. I had a new door installed not too long ago and just a year later its having all sorts of problems - very hard slamming where you can feel it shutting in different part of the house, it will not close all the way unless pulled tightly to lock.

If 16 OC does provide more structural reinforcement, I would definitely go ahead and use 16 but only in high use areas such as front doors. 24 oc for low use areas. In fact, if more studs increases rigidity and strength, I would even go ahead and do 12 OC. The name of the game is, reinforce areas with the highest stresses.

If I was building out a house from the ground up, I would be using 12, 16, and 24 studs starting from the front and then going to 24 as we get to the back of the house.

The reasoning for this is, imagine your home is like a car. There's regular mid tier cars and then there's luxury cars. With luxury cars, the sound and feel of the door opening and closing is pretty important and there's no way to cost cut this other than to use stronger or more materials.

 

[Beemer]

If you can justify studs at 24" by design analysis, then roof framing would follow and roof sheathing thickness also needs consideration.
We used to have some structures with 24" spacings but all components needed analysis to justify it.

 

[97tj-neil]

I am currently helping a friend install kitchen cabinets in the upstairs apartment in his new pole barn (barndominium). The Amish crew that framed it went with 2x6 24"OC for all interior walls.

If you do this, either add plywood before the drywall in the kitchen or add blocking where you will mount the cabinets. It is no fun adding blocking after the drywall and paint are done.

 

[mike93lx]

If you can justify studs at 23" by design analysis, then roof framing would follow and roof sheathing thickness also needs consideration.
We used to have some structures with 24" spacings but all components needed analysis to justify it.

24oc roofing is standard in truss construction

 

[Beemer]

24oc roofing is standard in truss construction

Yes and we increased the plywood sheathing thickness accordingly.

 

[mike93lx]

Yes and we increased the plywood sheathing thickness accordingly.

From what thickness? You can run 7/16 osb at 24oc

 

[Beemer]

From what thickness? You can run 7/16 osb at 24oc

Municipal jobs were generally 5/8" minimum (or more) plywood to meet roofing, if not loading, requirements. Never OSB.

 

[mike93lx]

Municipal jobs were always 5/8" minimum plywood to meet roofing requirements. Never OSB.

Sure, anyone can build beyond the minimum requirement. Muni jobs are other people's money, so those are easy

 

[Beemer]

Sure, anyone can build beyond the minimum requirement. Muni jobs are other people's money, so those are easy

And anyone can drive a Chevette but most decide not to. Minimum never benefited any building owner when the now common 100 year storm comes along.

 

[mike93lx]

And anyone can drive a Chevette but most decide not to. Minimum never benefited any building owner when the now common 100 year storm comes along.

I get all that. You can safely span 24oc with pretty thin stuff. It isn't made up, it's right in the span tables.

And lots of people drive econoboxes without any issue

 

[Zeke]

I think I have to agree with this post.

A couple of things though:
1. Its not clear how force is transferred from the door to the walls. What is clear, is how force is transferred from the weights above to the studs to the foundation.
2. Stronger structural around the doors, especially front doors is a must. I had a new door installed not too long ago and just a year later its having all sorts of problems - very hard slamming where you can feel it shutting in different part of the house, it will not close all the way unless pulled tightly to lock.

If 16 OC does provide more structural reinforcement, I would definitely go ahead and use 16 but only in high use areas such as front doors. 24 oc for low use areas. In fact, if more studs increases rigidity and strength, I would even go ahead and do 12 OC. The name of the game is, reinforce areas with the highest stresses.

If I was building out a house from the ground up, I would be using 12, 16, and 24 studs starting from the front and then going to 24 as we get to the back of the house.

The reasoning for this is, imagine your home is like a car. There's regular mid tier cars and then there's luxury cars. With luxury cars, the sound and feel of the door opening and closing is pretty important and there's no way to cost cut this other than to use stronger or more materials.

That makes no sense at all. Did AI write that?

 

[tehach]

That makes no sense at all. Did AI write that?

Yeah, that post is a fountain of nonsense.

 

[Minuteman305]

That makes no sense at all. Did AI write that?

What didn't make sense?

 

[billconner]

From what thickness? You can run 7/16 osb at 24oc

There is 3/8" ply rated for 24" roof spans, though I think only up to 30 psf snow load. I'd never use it nor recommend it, but out there. My last roof was sheathed with rough sawn 1x10s. Very strong and great nail holding IMHO.

 

[jar944]

What didn't make sense?

This part

I think I have to agree with this post.

A couple of things though:
1. Its not clear how force is transferred from the door to the walls. What is clear, is how force is transferred from the weights above to the studs to the foundation.
2. Stronger structural around the doors, especially front doors is a must. I had a new door installed not too long ago and just a year later its having all sorts of problems - very hard slamming where you can feel it shutting in different part of the house, it will not close all the way unless pulled tightly to lock.

If 16 OC does provide more structural reinforcement, I would definitely go ahead and use 16 but only in high use areas such as front doors. 24 oc for low use areas. In fact, if more studs increases rigidity and strength, I would even go ahead and do 12 OC. The name of the game is, reinforce areas with the highest stresses.

If I was building out a house from the ground up, I would be using 12, 16, and 24 studs starting from the front and then going to 24 as we get to the back of the house.

The reasoning for this is, imagine your home is like a car. There's regular mid tier cars and then there's luxury cars. With luxury cars, the sound and feel of the door opening and closing is pretty important and there's no way to cost cut this other than to use stronger or more materials.

 

[Minuteman305]

This part

I thought it was AI that couldn't comprehend.

 

[jar944]

I thought it was AI that couldn't comprehend.

I don't think you understand how framing works.

 

[i4ni]

I built my 26x40 dog kennel on 24" centers with 2x6 studs and 1/2" sheathing and I ended up having to put blocking in because the sheathing was cupping and looked like ****. 3/4" sheathing may have been ridgid enough but 1/2" sure wasn't
'

 

[Minuteman305]

I don't think you understand how framing works.

I'm still learning.

 

[LopezBart]

When we built my folk's 40x40 house 42 years ago, we used 2x6 construction - a bit new then around here - and 24" oc studs. The top part of the wall was blocked, glued & nailed every 4"; this formed a box beam which was stuffed w/ insulation and is stiff as hell; there are no headers, even over the 6' front windows. There are two rough lumber exposed 'railroad' trusses that span the 40' (one piece lower members), and a hipped diaphragm roof w/ 1/2" staggered and clipped plywood . The house is stiff as anything, and has no interior bearing walls. The exterior is sheathed w/ 5/8' plywood and covered w/ ship lap cedar.

 

[tjansson]

2x6 24" OC is very common in Vermont. My whole house, built in 1978, and detached garage is 2x6 24" OC with 1/2 ply sheathing. Just built an addition with 2x6 24" OC. Don't have any of the wavy, or flexible issues discussed on this thread. You get about +1 on whole-wall R-value vs a 16 inch OC 2x6 wall, and save a bit on lumber. If you use some advanced framing details you save more lumber and improve thermal performance a bit more. I do think 24" OC framing requires a little bit more thought on how loads are transferred as it's not as stupidly redundant at 16" OC.

 

[billconner]

When we built my folk's 40x40 house 42 years ago, we used 2x6 construction - a bit new then around here - and 24" oc studs. The top part of the wall was blocked, glued & nailed every 4"; this formed a box beam which was stuffed w/ insulation and is stiff as hell; there are no headers, even over the 6' front windows. There are two rough lumber exposed 'railroad' trusses that span the 40' (one piece lower members), and a hipped diaphragm roof w/ 1/2" staggered and clipped plywood . The house is stiff as anything, and has no interior bearing walls. The exterior is sheathed w/ 5/8' plywood and covered w/ ship lap cedar.

Wish you could sketch or photo the "box beam", as well as explain "railroad truss". Google turned up nothing. Thanks.

 

[tjansson]

Wish you could sketch or photo the "box beam", as well as explain "railroad truss". Google turned up nothing. Thanks.

Might be a variation on a panel box header. I used the single sided version on my addition for window and door headers.

 

[billconner]

Might be a variation on a panel box header. I used the single sided version on my addition for window and door headers.

I understood the header, but was trying to picture it across a whole wall. Is the bottom 2x6 segmented or somehow continuous?

Lived in two balloon framed houses - 1880s and other 1904 - and no headers nor jacks at all. 1x12 rough sawn sheathing - so no problems. Makes me wonder if you used 3/4" ply sheathing if you could skip headers (structurally, not code wise).

 

[LopezBart]

I understood the header, but was trying to picture it across a whole wall. Is the bottom 2x6 segmented or somehow continuous?

Lived in two balloon framed houses - 1880s and other 1904 - and no headers nor jacks at all. 1x12 rough sawn sheathing - so no problems. Makes me wonder if you used 3/4" ply sheathing if you could skip headers (structurally, not code wise).

There are 6x6 finish posts every 6 feet or so. The windows go down to about 20" above the floor. The box beam (indeed, a two-sided panel box header) goes straight across most of the front of the house. The plywood is nailed and glued on both sides along the box beam.
By "railroad truss", I meant a Warren truss (see below). We built in on-site, with 3/16 steel joining plates and rough sawn lumber for the external members and 4x4 webbing. Iirc it is 5' deep, and the two trusses are 6' apart. The bottom chord spans the 40' house; the 40' lumber was available direct from the mill at the time. I'll snag a picture or two; we're fixing up the place (my parents are both gone) as a long-term rental to make the property (taxes and insurance and improvements) pay for itself.

 

[billconner]

Thanks. Makes sense.

I'd call it a post frame with box beam headers.

 

[LopezBart]

A couple of pics I took today on my lunch walk. Looking down towards Port Stanley on Lopez Island. Various bits of stuff sitting around since we're cleaning up & redoing things for a rental. Bird outlines on windows trying to prevent so many small birds dashing their brains out against the glass. Deck needs complete rework after 40 years. You can see the bottoms of the trusses heading into the sheet rock on the ceiling. The second photo has the trusses themselves.

 

[The Cobbler]

I think I have to agree with this post.

A couple of things though:
1. Its not clear how force is transferred from the door to the walls. What is clear, is how force is transferred from the weights above to the studs to the foundation.
2. Stronger structural around the doors, especially front doors is a must. I had a new door installed not too long ago and just a year later its having all sorts of problems - very hard slamming where you can feel it shutting in different part of the house, it will not close all the way unless pulled tightly to lock.

If 16 OC does provide more structural reinforcement, I would definitely go ahead and use 16 but only in high use areas such as front doors. 24 oc for low use areas. In fact, if more studs increases rigidity and strength, I would even go ahead and do 12 OC. The name of the game is, reinforce areas with the highest stresses.

If I was building out a house from the ground up, I would be using 12, 16, and 24 studs starting from the front and then going to 24 as we get to the back of the house.

The reasoning for this is, imagine your home is like a car. There's regular mid tier cars and then there's luxury cars. With luxury cars, the sound and feel of the door opening and closing is pretty important and there's no way to cost cut this other than to use stronger or more materials.

WOW . just WOW

 

[billconner]

LopezBart - very nice!

The Cobbler - some posts you just have to wince at and move on.