Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't seem to locate this info on the internet, but surely the numbers exist somewhere.
We're moving soon into a new house. Our old homes have had basements where we could install our exercise equipment in the basement. We won't have a basement in our new home, and likely a second floor bedroom is where we'll have to put the exercise equipment.
This will include a Smith machine, a professional treadmill, a professional elliptical, and three weight racks bearing about 400 pounds each of weights.
So I'm wondering if the floors of a second-floor bedroom--presuming around 10x11 size with standard 16-inch on center 2x8 joists-- will hold it all.
One or more of the walls UNDER the room will be load bearing. Put the weights and weight bench along the area above that is closest to that wall, and try not to concentrate the weight. The weakest part of a span is the center. You are doing a fairly large load in a small room. You could run the calculations, but a lot depends on the builder and the quality of the work. With a lot of newer construction, I wouldn't take the chance.
On the West coast prior to the new code it was always 40 lbs per sq ft.
Yes, that's what I'm now seeing on the link that K'ledgeBldr provided. Or rather, I'm seeing 30 psf for bedrooms.
I guess I don't really understand what that means in practicality, because that seems like a very low figure. I'm four times that much myself if I stand on one foot, so I don't know how that translates to what I can actually do.
The key is that the 30psf figure is that it is an evenly distributed load. You can extrapolate from that that a ten by ten foot bedroom constructed to code would safely carry 10 x 10 x 30 = 3,000 lbs of furniture and people that are somewhat randomly distributed in the space. That type of estimation falls apart in larger areas, but can still give a general idea of acceptable conservative loading.
In order to set standards over a wide variety of possible scenarios, the physical properties of the structural components have to be averaged. There are specific formula for various types of beam loading eg: center span, uniform, multiple point. The amount of deflection of the material under a load is measured under various loads and an average constant for the amount it can safely flex is determined. That is the modulus of elasticity. In crude form, if you took a single 2" x 8" beam and loaded it up evenly with bricks until it reached the downward limit of deflection, you could reverse figure that load and come up with the modulus of elasticity. When such beams are joined together and adjacent beams take up load as well, the computations get a little more complex.
With flooring spans, the L360 standard means the floor can be loaded along a span up to the point where there is a downward center deflection that equals 1/360th of the span length. A ten foot span is 120 inches, so therefore *in theory* if you load the floor until it sags 1/3 of an inch in the center, you have reached the safe loading limit. You can measure this with a laser beam set to go across the floor and a ruler measuring the distance between the floor and the laser beam.
People can and do weight down rooms far beyond the specified limits. Because the standards are conservative, there are generally no catastrophic failures. What more commonly happens are deformations in the structure - doors and windows don't open and close properly, cracking can occur in walls and hard surfaces, and permanent deformations occur. A tiled floor that flexes that much will likely have broken tiles (FWIW there is a different 360 standard used for tile).
My concern with modern construction is that it is designed to be cost-effective to the contractor and shave very close to the allowable minimum limits. In an older home with oak or other hardwood beams, there was a use of quality material and over-engineering. As a simple example of a more modern problem, a home might be designed with the intent of fir studding and joists. The contractor gets a great deal on some southern pine studs with "acceptable" defects and saves a few bucks. Because the design already called for the minimum material to meet code( but of a stronger material), the construction can look good but not even meet that minimum. That uses up the safety slack built into the standards.
All true, and ever WORSE when you are talking a "dynamic load"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea
The key is that the 30psf figure is that it is an evenly distributed load. You can extrapolate from that that a ten by ten foot bedroom constructed to code would safely carry 10 x 10 x 30 = 3,000 lbs of furniture and people that are somewhat randomly distributed in the space. That type of estimation falls apart in larger areas, but can still give a general idea of acceptable conservative loading.
In order to set standards over a wide variety of possible scenarios, the physical properties of the structural components have to be averaged. There are specific formula for various types of beam loading eg: center span, uniform, multiple point. The amount of deflection of the material under a load is measured under various loads and an average constant for the amount it can safely flex is determined. That is the modulus of elasticity. In crude form, if you took a single 2" x 8" beam and loaded it up evenly with bricks until it reached the downward limit of deflection, you could reverse figure that load and come up with the modulus of elasticity. When such beams are joined together and adjacent beams take up load as well, the computations get a little more complex.
With flooring spans, the L360 standard means the floor can be loaded along a span up to the point where there is a downward center deflection that equals 1/360th of the span length. A ten foot span is 120 inches, so therefore *in theory* if you load the floor until it sags 1/3 of an inch in the center, you have reached the safe loading limit. You can measure this with a laser beam set to go across the floor and a ruler measuring the distance between the floor and the laser beam.
People can and do weight down rooms far beyond the specified limits. Because the standards are conservative, there are generally no catastrophic failures. What more commonly happens are deformations in the structure - doors and windows don't open and close properly, cracking can occur in walls and hard surfaces, and permanent deformations occur. A tiled floor that flexes that much will likely have broken tiles (FWIW there is a different 360 standard used for tile).
My concern with modern construction is that it is designed to be cost-effective to the contractor and shave very close to the allowable minimum limits. In an older home with oak or other hardwood beams, there was a use of quality material and over-engineering. As a simple example of a more modern problem, a home might be designed with the intent of fir studding and joists. The contractor gets a great deal on some southern pine studs with "acceptable" defects and saves a few bucks. Because the design already called for the minimum material to meet code( but of a stronger material), the construction can look good but not even meet that minimum. That uses up the safety slack built into the standards.
Things get CRAZY when you are talking about a big guy on a treadmill or really pumping iron -- the forces will greatly exceed 30psi -- at "normal" jogging speeds the forces are basically doubled -- Dynamic Loads of Joggers Factor the static load of the 'treadmil' itself made worse with the typical small contact area of wheel that elevate the front / rear...) and you could very well pop some drywall. I doubt you'd get a "catastrophic failure" without somebody literally sawing away at the floor joists, but keep the video rolling as you'd surely win "America's Funniest Home Video" as you crush the couch from above...
Last edited by chet everett; 06-13-2014 at 05:53 PM..
Here is some reading material. Your question is quite common among people with aquariums, since they can often be quite heavy. I tend to read fish keeping sites, and the question of weight is asked over and over. (I don't worry too much about the weight of my 5 gallon tank)
The general consensus is that 75-100 gallon aquariums are acceptable on the second story (which translates into 750-1000 lbs, in a very small footprint.
I wouldn't worry about it. But here is some reading you might find interesting. (The article talks about aquarium volume, 1 gallon weights about 10 lbs)
If you are worried about it, but the 400 lbs of weight against the outside wall (since the beam is strongest the closer to the ends you are). The outside wall will be load bearing. One or more of the inside walls might be load bearing, but they might not be.
My concern with modern construction is that it is designed to be cost-effective to the contractor and shave very close to the allowable minimum limits. In an older home with oak or other hardwood beams, there was a use of quality material and over-engineering. As a simple example of a more modern problem, a home might be designed with the intent of fir studding and joists. The contractor gets a great deal on some southern pine studs with "acceptable" defects and saves a few bucks. Because the design already called for the minimum material to meet code( but of a stronger material), the construction can look good but not even meet that minimum. That uses up the safety slack built into the standards.
<sigh>
The house we just left was built in 1959. The original architectural plans were still in the house, and where the architect had, for instance, specified wood for the load bearing girders there were steel I-beams. The interior walls were 1/2-inch drywall covered by an additional 3/8-inch layer of plaster--even inside the closets. The whole house was overbuilt. And the old-growth fir framing was the hardest wood I've ever dealt with--I burned out more than one drill. I always believed the contractor built it for himself.
Won't it be pretty noisy downstairs while you're working out upstairs? I've lived in apartments where the person above had a treadmill and it sounded like a train was going through.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All true, and ever WORSE when you are talking a "dynamic load"...
