# Non Load Bearing Header



## GottaFixIt (Dec 3, 2010)

I need to construct a header for a 106" opening on a non load bearing partition wall.

The wall will be supporting a Johnson Hardware Multi-Pass (Tri-Pass) Door Track with (3) 36" x 80" doors with glass.

It will be a 3-Ply header of dimensional lumber to accommodate the track.

Currently, I'm leaning towards (3) - 2 x 8's glued and screwed. 

What would you use?


----------



## mae-ling (Dec 9, 2011)

I would not use a header at all. Put cripple studs every 2' (or 16" if you like)


----------



## BigJim (Sep 2, 2008)

GottaFixIt said:


> I need to construct a header for a 106" opening on a non load bearing partition wall.
> 
> The wall will be supporting a Johnson Hardware Multi-Pass (Tri-Pass) Door Track with (3) 36" x 80" doors with glass.
> 
> ...


If your wall is thicker than 2X4s I would do just like you suggested.


----------



## titanoman (Nov 27, 2011)

mae-ling said:


> I would not use a header at all. Put cripple studs every 2' (or 16" if you like)


That makes for a pretty flimsy wall.
And you can go to carpenter hell for putting anything 2' o/c.

The dbl 2x8 is overkill though. You could build a strong-back header (2 2x4's nailed in an "L" shape) and then notch the 1 1/2 x 3 1/2 out of the cripples.
The wall won't have any bounce or sag to it.

Edit: Nix that.
I guess you have a 4 1/2" wall.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy S2


----------



## Maintenance 6 (Feb 26, 2008)

If it's a 2x4 wall, I'd use two 2x6s with a piece of 1/2" plywood glued and screwed between them. That should be more than sufficient to carry the doors. Make sure the header ends are sitting on jack studs.


----------



## Big Stud (Jul 3, 2011)

I have to agree that 2x8s are overkill. 2x6 would be plenty strong.

My question is, do you not have to drywall the header after putting it in? Or should we assume that the framing is 4 1/2" and with 1/2" drywall will be 5 1/2"?

If it is a standard 2x4 wall, the framing is going to be 3 1/2". Usually you would use 2- 2x6 or 2x whatever with a piece of 1/2" plywood in between.

BTW ....... the other answers about just using a 2x4 on the flat with cripples would likely work as well in a non load bearing wall and be more cost effective. It just depends on what you want to spend,


----------



## BigJim (Sep 2, 2008)

I do agree 3 2X8s are an over kill but if that is what he wants to do that is fine with me, it will for sure make a strong wall.


----------



## GottaFixIt (Dec 3, 2010)

Here is the installation directions.

It requires a 5 1/4" header. The 3 Two-Bys would give me 4 1/2. I could space or shim these out to 5 1/4" - probably with a couple of sheets of 3/8 ply.

Or I could lay a 6x flat underneath and just deal with the extra 1/8" spacing from the trim.

I guess another option may be to construct a structural box beam.

Ugh... So many choices....

I just want to make sure that this 9' span doesn't bow down over the years...

Still open for suggestions.


----------



## GottaFixIt (Dec 3, 2010)

Big Stud said:


> BTW ....... the other answers about just using a 2x4 on the flat with cripples would likely work as well in a non load bearing wall and be more cost effective. It just depends on what you want to spend,


I thought long and hard about just using a flat 2 x 6.

There are a couple of things that bother me about that.

*IRC 2006 and 2009, Section R602.7.2* 
Nonbearing walls. Load-bearing headers are not required in interior or exterior nonbearing walls. A single, flat 2-inch-by-4-inch (51 mm by 102 mm) member may be used as a header in interior or exterior nonbearing walls for openings up to *8 feet (2438 mm) in width* if the *vertical distance to the parallel nailing surface above is not more than 24 inches* (610 mm). For such nonbearing headers, no cripples or blocking is required above the header. 


I'm over 8' width. In addition, this is in a lean-to roof above this. It doesn't have a vertical parallel nailer above it.


----------



## sixeightten (Feb 10, 2009)

Go with the box beam or the triple 2x8. I think the glue and screws are unnecessary, but it sure can't hurt. The door itself will be hang from the header and that alone can cause sag over time.


----------



## mae-ling (Dec 9, 2011)

"That makes for a pretty flimsy wall.
And you can go to carpenter hell for putting anything 2' o/c."

Mis-information here.

This is a non loadbearing wall. Header is not required. And 2foot on center studs are allowed.

Many assume a header above any door, why ? There really is no load. 
Even for these doors which hang from the top. If you have a plate above the doors, cripple studs up to a top plate which is nailed to the bottom of the rafters nothing can really go anywhere. Unless these are heavy doors.

Putting in a header is not wrong, just not needed.


----------



## titanoman (Nov 27, 2011)

sixeightten said:


> Go with the box beam or the triple 2x8. I think the glue and screws are unnecessary, but it sure can't hurt. The door itself will be hang from the header and that alone can cause sag over time.


Also if you have the room double up the trimmers just because it's over 6'.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy S2


----------



## titanoman (Nov 27, 2011)

mae-ling said:


> "That makes for a pretty flimsy wall.
> And you can go to carpenter hell for putting anything 2' o/c."
> 
> Mis-information here.
> ...


There is no mis-information here.
And you are a lousy carpenter if you frame 2' o/c.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy S2


----------



## mae-ling (Dec 9, 2011)

GottaFixIt said:


> I thought long and hard about just using a flat 2 x 6.
> 
> There are a couple of things that bother me about that.
> 
> ...


There is no top plate to this wall? 
The way I read that is a 2x4 works on the flat up to 8' without cripples, more than 8' needs cripples.

Anything you put in for a header will work go double 2x6 with plywood inbetween or triple or double or triple 2x8, nail it or glue and screw


----------



## titanoman (Nov 27, 2011)

mae-ling said:


> There is no top plate to this wall?
> The way I read that is a 2x4 works on the flat up to 8' without cripples, more than 8' needs cripples.
> 
> Anything you put in for a header will work go double 2x6 with plywood inbetween or triple or double or triple 2x8, nail it or glue and screw


That's what I said in my first post (because of the width, use something on edge). Dbl 2x6 is fine.
Cripples 16" o/c above it.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy S2


----------



## mae-ling (Dec 9, 2011)

Here is a link about 24inch framing. It is in the code book. Allowed for 1 story buildings or walls that are not load bearing.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/26449.pdf

I have renovated houses that had 12" o/c spacing. in non-load bearing walls. That was his preference, yours is for 16" o/c (which is what I used to do as well) 24" is perfectly fine


----------



## titanoman (Nov 27, 2011)

mae-ling said:


> Here is a link about 24inch framing. It is in the code book. Allowed for 1 story buildings or walls that are not load bearing.
> http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy01osti/26449.pdf
> 
> I have renovated houses that had 12" o/c spacing. in non-load bearing walls. That was his preference, yours is for 16" o/c (which is what I used to do as well) 24" is perfectly fine


I don't need to go to any link.
I repeat. You are a lousy carpenter if you take any short-cut you can.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy S2


----------



## GottaFixIt (Dec 3, 2010)

mae-ling said:


> There is no top plate to this wall?
> The way I read that is a 2x4 works on the flat up to 8' without cripples, more than 8' needs cripples.
> 
> Anything you put in for a header will work go double 2x6 with plywood inbetween or triple or double or triple 2x8, nail it or glue and screw


I guess that's open to interpretation. If they were hinged doors, I'd probably just use a flat 2x with cripples. But because these are hanging, I'd feel more comfortable with a header. 

Anyway, here's what I came up with. All 2x6's except 1x stock to finish off the jamb. 

Think it will work?


----------



## titanoman (Nov 27, 2011)

GottaFixIt said:


> I guess that's open to interpretation. If they were hinged doors, I'd probably just use a flat 2x with cripples. But because these are hanging, I'd feel more comfortable with a header.
> 
> Anyway, here's what I came up with. All 2x6's except 1x stock to finish off the jamb.
> 
> Think it will work?


Looks like a box header.
Good choice. Looks good.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy S2


----------



## GottaFixIt (Dec 3, 2010)

titanoman said:


> Looks like a box header.
> Good choice. Looks good.
> 
> Sent from a Samsung Galaxy S2


Box header with double jack studs as you'd suggested.

Probably overkill, but lumber is cheap compared to how I'd feel if it sagged.


----------



## titanoman (Nov 27, 2011)

GottaFixIt said:


> Box header with double jack studs as you'd suggested.
> 
> Probably overkill, but lumber is cheap compared to how I'd feel if it sagged.


Can I ask, is that a CADD program or something else you're using?
You obviously know your way around it.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy S2


----------



## pyper (Jul 1, 2009)

Y'all are missing the point.

He's going to _hang _a heavy door from it.

I would use a pair of 2x8 and rip part of a 2x4 to fill the gap between them, glued and screwed.


----------



## titanoman (Nov 27, 2011)

pyper said:


> Y'all are missing the point.
> 
> He's going to hang a heavy door from it.
> 
> I would use a pair of 2x8 and rip part of a 2x4 to fill the gap between them, glued and screwed.


Whose "y'll"? I'm not missing anything.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy S2


----------



## Beanfacekilla (Jan 7, 2012)

titanoman said:


> Can I ask, is that a CADD program or something else you're using?
> You obviously know your way around it.
> 
> Sent from a Samsung Galaxy S2


 
I will answer for you. It is google sketchup. It is free to all. 

It takes some time to learn, but it is very useful for planning and visuals.

*To the OP: *I did see the S/U model of your doorway, and it looks good to me. 

Peace.


----------



## mae-ling (Dec 9, 2011)

Yep, as others have said will work fine.


----------



## GottaFixIt (Dec 3, 2010)

titanoman said:


> Can I ask, is that a CADD program or something else you're using?
> You obviously know your way around it.
> 
> Sent from a Samsung Galaxy S2





Beanfacekilla said:


> I will answer for you. It is google sketchup. It is free to all.
> 
> It takes some time to learn, but it is very useful for planning and visuals.
> 
> ...


Yep. Sketchup.

I have a hard time visualizing designs. I use it to overcome that. I always start with graph paper, then move to a model.

When framing becomes more complex than simple 16" OC, I usually use it to figure it out and make a material list.

Here's another example. This was absolutely necessary for me as I was lost trying to figure the angles and lengths on graph paper.


----------



## titanoman (Nov 27, 2011)

That's pretty cool.

I went to	Architecture school at the University of Missouri, Columbia, and am a pencil and paper draftsman.
We touched on CADD, but I didn't persue the CADDP.

I think I will go play with that Google app in a little while.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy S2


----------



## spring3100 (May 6, 2011)

You are putting bottom runners on those doors,this should prevent sagging over time.

I made a folding door arrangement (4 doors) across a balcony using Johnson folding door hardware,Header above was 2 2 by 4's.

It has been in place about 5 years with no sagging,doors were fire rated and the four together weighed 140 pounds.

Probably shouldn't have asked my wife to lift them into place,but they wanted the vote!!! LOL


----------



## titanoman (Nov 27, 2011)

spring3100 said:


> You are putting bottom runners on those doors,this should prevent sagging over time.
> 
> I made a folding door arrangement (4 doors) across a balcony using Johnson folding door hardware,Header above was 2 2 by 4's.
> 
> ...


The bottom tract isn't going to prevent sagging. That's not why it's there.
Besides, they already framed it, and did it right.

Sent from a Samsung Galaxy S2


----------



## spring3100 (May 6, 2011)

titanoman said:


> The bottom tract isn't going to prevent sagging. That's not why it's there.
> Besides, they already framed it, and did it right.
> 
> Sent from a Samsung Galaxy S2


 It'll guide and support just fine


----------



## GottaFixIt (Dec 3, 2010)

spring3100 said:


> You are putting bottom runners on those doors,this should prevent sagging over time.
> 
> I made a folding door arrangement (4 doors) across a balcony using Johnson folding door hardware,Header above was 2 2 by 4's.
> 
> ...


I appreciate your advice. I've decided to stick with the box beam idea.

In order to get the depth I need with lumber stood vertically, I'd have to rip plywood shims, etc...

I like the idea of all 2x6 lumber it will simplify the construction. I'd probably use a couple of flat 2x6s if I was using bi-folds as the weight really pivots from the very corners of the header and will never bear on the middle. With these sliding doors, it's feasible to have all 3 doors hanging from the middle of this beam.

It doesn't appear to me that these bottom guides have any intention of supporting the weight of the door at any point.


----------



## mae-ling (Dec 9, 2011)

Your doors are entirely supported by the top, those just keep doors from rubbing each other.


----------

