# Taking rough opening height from 80" to 82.5"



## swindmill (Feb 7, 2010)

I have a doorway that had odd sized double doors and the rough opening is 48.5" x 80".  I need to make the RO 32" x 82.5".  

I can't be sure that the wall is not load bearing.  It is an interior wall that was added about 5 years ago, but at the same time, the attic was finished into a bedroom, so I suppose it's possible that this wall now helps support that.  

The header is made by two 2x4's sitting side by side from jack stud to jack stud, rather than stacked, and there are 3 cripple studs. 

How do I go about reconstructing this into a 32" x 82.5"?


----------



## GregC (Feb 7, 2010)

As long as you have king studs going all the way up you will be OK to re-frame. if not, use temporary support (shoring) next to your widest point of framing and install new header, jack and king studs then remove temporary studs you used for shoring. If you are load bearing from above room, I would suggest installing a 2x12 header. This will give you added support for above and you will be safe either way.


----------



## swindmill (Feb 7, 2010)

After looking closer, the header is two 2x6's.  As far as it being load bearing or not, it's hard to tell.  The wall separates two different height ceilings. The attic BR is directly on top of the downstairs BR, which is what this doorway leads to.  When the attic room was added, the ceiling above the downstairs BR was dropped about 2 feet to make more room upstairs.  So, the ceiling on one side of the wall in question is 8.5 ft., and on the other side of the wall (hallway), the ceiling is about 11 ft.  The king studs in this doorway go up to the top plate, which I obviously can't see past.  The top plate is at the 8.5 ft ceiling, but the wall obviously goes up to 11 feet.  There is a ledge in the upstairs room above the hallway.  I hope that description makes some sense.  If so, does it shed any light on whether the wall is load bearing or not?


----------



## Bud Cline (Feb 7, 2010)

If the header is made of 2X6's you have room to modify it by cutting into the 2X6's.  Nothing is going anywhere under these circumstances. Use a Sawzall.


----------



## swindmill (Feb 7, 2010)

Bud Cline said:


> If the header is made of 2X6's you have room to modify it by cutting into the 2X6's.  Nothing is going anywhere under these circumstances. Use a Sawzall.



That would be a lot easier than tearing down drywall and reframing.  I'd have to cut 2.5" out of the 2x6's.  If it's safe to do, then that's what I'll plan on.  

...I'm thinking I could probably just take 2" out and go to 82" since my floors are hardwood and I won't be putting down carpet on either side of the door.


----------



## Bud Cline (Feb 8, 2010)

If the existing header is made of 2X6 and is now a nominal 48" wide and you are closing the opening down to 32" the remaining 2X6 (after alteration) will easily continue to carry the distributed load. This is a simple modification as far as I can see.  Even if the wall has become load bearing with previous modifications the moments won't necessarily change.


----------



## Wuzzat? (Feb 9, 2010)

Bud Cline said:


> If the header is made of 2X6's you have room to modify it by cutting into the 2X6's.  Nothing is going anywhere under these circumstances. Use a Sawzall.


Yes.  
If you want, bolt a 1/4" thk x 3.5" steel plate to the 2x6 to keep the bending strength the same or more than it was before you notched out the bottom 2".
If I can find the formula it may say you can use 1/8" thk steel.  I'll post back.


----------



## Bud Cline (Feb 9, 2010)

The 2X6's should already have a piece of plywood between the two of them to add strength and come up to the required 3-1/2" width to match the adjacent 3-1/2" studs.  Not to say steel wouldn't be better but not sure there is room for it anywhere now.


----------



## Wuzzat? (Feb 9, 2010)

I didn't see the 48" to 32" reduction.  

The 32", 3" high arrangement is 18% weaker, other things being equal.  It's [48"^4]/[5.5"^3] vs. [32"^4]/[3.0"^3].  The 48" has less deflection and so it is stronger.  

All the other stuff drops out of the equations.


----------



## swindmill (Feb 10, 2010)

Thanks for the replies and information.  There is not a piece of plywood between the 2x6's. Does this mean I absolutely should use a steel plate where I notch out 2"? Will that make up for the weaker arrangement, or is the weaker arrangement even going to be something to worry about?  I'm working on the upstairs now, so I could pull a floor board up and see which way the joists are running if that is important.


----------



## Wuzzat? (Feb 10, 2010)

If you can leave 3.2" instead of 3.0" the strength is the same, so you then remove 2.3" [instead of 2.5"] from each 2x6 [of which the exact dims are 1.5" x 5.5"].

It seems like these high value exponents make the final result very sensitive to the dimensions.  
This also tells me why I get different values than some tables.  If you round off 3.2" to 3" you get different final answers.  
This precision is necessary only for the span value and the moment value.


----------



## swindmill (Feb 24, 2010)

I've got the opening finished and the door in place.  







Would it be wise, or add any support, if I doubled up on the jack studs?


----------



## Wuzzat? (Feb 24, 2010)

"When framing door openings, it is desirable [?] to double the studs"
from
Google Image Result for http://www.sweethaven02.com/BldgConst/carpentry01/en5156b0034.gif

Carpentry - Google Books

Carpentry & Building Construction: A ... - Google Books


----------



## swindmill (Feb 27, 2010)

I wasn't sure in this situation because of the unique circumstances.  The original opening has king and jack studs, but because I just made that opening smaller, I wasn't sure if there was any reason to put two jack studs where I brought it in on the one side.  I suppose there's no reason not to.


----------



## Bud Cline (Feb 27, 2010)

DO IT!  Over time and with use, the hinges and the strike will cause undo vibration in those studs and eventually loosen the wallboard around the nails that hold it in place. Stiffen it up a little with double studs as it should be.


----------



## swindmill (Feb 27, 2010)

I hadn't thought about the vibration on that one stud...that would be an issue. I'll put another stud up before I drywall it today.


----------



## Bud Cline (Feb 27, 2010)

Under these circumstances I would even think about turning that extra stud 180 degrees to further stiffen the first stud.  Don't think the hinge side won't move over time because it will but probably not as much as the "strike" side.


----------



## swindmill (Feb 27, 2010)

Do you mean a quarter turn...to form a T, rather than side by side?


----------



## Wuzzat? (Feb 27, 2010)

Bud Cline said:


> Under these circumstances I would even think about turning that extra stud 180 degrees to further stiffen the first stud.


Literally, you're right.  It'd be ~6x stiffer, but I don't think anyone does this.  Maybe other considerations take precedence.


----------



## Bud Cline (Feb 27, 2010)

> Do you mean a quarter turn...to form a T, rather than side by side?


Yes, basically!

I agree it isn't normally done, but hey, why not? Anyway, either way, stiffen both of those studs, hinge and strike side.

It probably isn't done because it would give you less "meat" to attach the casing to. Casing will typically be around 2 inches wide and sometimes a fastener is desired about 1-1/4" from the edge as well as close to the jamb.  Doubling the studs in the traditional manner would provide the needed meat to nail to.


----------

