No I-Beam

Just wondering. Home had manufactured floor joists and no I-beam. Instead of a beam there was a 2x6 wall supporting the floor joists. Is this acceptable ?

Looks fine to me assumming there is a depressed slab in the area of the bearing wall. :slight_smile:

It is probably better if, as Marcel said, there is adequate footing under it. The sag potential is reduced but one doesn’t have a big open area with the wall there instead of a beam.

· **Repair: **Blocking or strapping shall be provided for the non finished load bearing interior wall in basement to prevent to prevent sideways buckling. It should be fastened to the studs at mid-height.

Anyone have a illustration of blocking and strapping?

Guys this is normal building practices (and code)… as long as there is a footer under the wall (which you will not see) then its fine. And I-beam would do nothing other than exert more weight upon the footer that is carrying all the tributary load.

Being that the pictures are limited, I can not speak on the proper header size and number of jacks without knowing the rough opening as well as the weight being loaded upon the header.

If you as an HI are not familiar with basic structural / framing practice then defer to a GC. Blocking and strapping is not required…it nothing but overkill as far as framing…it does help out with drywall and fireblocking.

And by the way, a 2x4 wall would have been sufficient as well as long as point loads are accounted for and the house does not exceed 2 1/2 stories.


PS. For those who need to sharpen on upon basic framing details or simply want something good to read…go here. Just realize that there are numerous framing methods…simply because one does not see it in an illustration or your part of the country does not mean its wrong. When I build a spec or custom home I make sure my framer do not double up joist under plumbing walls but rather block out same with blocks in order to keep the plumbers from cutting joist or offsetting plumbing fixtures…95% of builders dont do that…yet it is just as strong and resolves issues the plumbers might have.

Also, when inspecting I-joist…make sure you know what you are looking at…many times framers leave out squash blocks, improperly cut the joist or do not pack out doubled joist as is required at times.


Not in my area!


Marcel, could you elaborate why not in your area? Curious minds want to know. :slight_smile:


Sorry for not explaining myself better.

What I meant by the comment not in my area was in reference to Jeffery’s comments that it is normal building practices and code.

For my area, the National Building Code (NBC) reads:

Where loadbearing interior walls are not finished in accordance with Sentence (2), blocking or strapping shall be fastened to the studs at mid-height to prevent sideways buckling.

Hope this explains my position on this topic more appropriately.


What does sentence (2) require for finishing?

LOL… I speak of US practices… I suspect you all may have greater snow loads however can you elaborate on the code you speak of.

  1. Bracing is not required where walls
    a) have an interior finish conforming to the requirements of Section 9.29., or
    b) where the walls are
    i)clad with panel type siding
    ii)diagonally sheathed with lumber, or
    iii)sheathed with plywood, OSB, waferboard, gypsum or fibreboard sheating.


Correct me if I misinterpreted…

They are saying that Gypsum board is acceptable in place of bracing, blocking, or wood sheathing, to prevent “sideways buckling” ???

You get snow also…




See attached (in colour)!

WOW! :shock:


In your area, you have no code requirements whatsoever for lateral support of unfinished support walls in basement according to your post; yet, because we have a requirement you say WOW

Please explain your logic?

My ‘wow’ is in reaction to the acceptance of gypsum board in place of wood sheathing, etc… not to the requirement for lateral support. Do they honestly feel that the gypsum board is actually going to provide any meaningful support? My bad for not being more clear in my reaction. :wink:

Then that goes to show that its bogus…drywall is about as structural as thermoply…lol.