Step of racks in a frame house. Walls of a frame house Frame house a step of racks for insulation

The widespread use of frame technology is due to the obvious advantages of this construction method. Among the most serious advantages is the simple construction of the walls, an important element of which are the vertical elements of the frame - the pillars. The strength of the building and the cost of construction depend on the competent choice of material for the manufacture and the pitch of the racks.

The constituent elements of the frame of the enclosing structures

The walls of a frame building are an important part of the building. In this case, the supporting structure consists of the following elements:

Bottom harness;
Top harness;
Racks.

The first two elements are horizontal and are interconnected using vertically installed racks. It is the latter that take on the main load from the building structures located above. Therefore, determining the size of the racks and the distance between them must be approached responsibly and as seriously as possible.

Factors affecting the pitch of the stanchions

Competent design of the main parameters of the racks of a frame building, namely the section and step, involves taking into account the following factors:

The number of storeys of the building, which affects both of these parameters. This is due to the fact that it is the racks that act as the main load-bearing element of the wall frame;
The type of lumber and wood used in the manufacture. The requirements for them are set out in two normative documents: SNiPe II-25-80 in the updated edition of 2011 and GOST 2454;
The type of wall envisaged by the project. The uprights are often used as a base for cladding the building envelope, both inside and outside the building. This must be taken into account when determining the step between them.

The uprights of the wall frame are quite rightly considered the basic part of the structural frame of the building. This explains why such serious attention is paid to the choice of material for their manufacture and the determination of the pitch between adjacent elements.

Optimal distance between uprights

Most of the reference literature on frame private housing construction determines the optimal size between adjacent racks, equal to:

60 cm, if measured along the axis of the bar used for manufacture;
57.5 cm, if you calculate the distance between the edges of adjacent bars.

As a rule, no serious explanation or justification for such figures is provided. Nevertheless, the serious experience of practical frame construction, accumulated in recent years, confirms the correctness of the indicated values. Moreover, a significant part of the standard projects of frame houses, developed by serious and reputable design or contracting organizations, provide for a rack spacing of 60 cm.

As the only addition to what has been said, it should be noted that many experienced professional builders admit the possibility of a slight deviation from the figures given, in which the step of the vertical elements of the wall of a frame house varies between 50 and 70 cm.The maximum value of this parameter is 100 cm, but in practice they are similar buildings are extremely difficult to meet. A prerequisite for all these figures is the use of exclusively high-quality wood in the manufacture of racks, which does not have defects and belongs to the 1st grade.

Have you ever come across a topic about “correct” or “wrong” frame house emerging in discussions on forums? Often people poke their noses into the fact that the frame is wrong, but they find it difficult to explain clearly why it is wrong and how it should be. In this article I will try to explain what is usually hidden behind the concept of a “correct” frame, which is the basis of a frame house, just like a human skeleton. In the future, I hope, we will consider other aspects as well.

Surely you know that the foundation is the foundation of the house. This is true, but the frame house has another foundation - no less important than the foundation. This is the frame itself.

Which frame house is “correct”?

I'll start with the basics. Why is it so difficult to talk about the correct frame house? because the only true correct frame house does not exist... What a surprise, isn't it? 🙂

You will ask why? It's very simple. A frame house is a large constructor with many solutions. And there are many decisions that can be called correct. There are even more decisions - "half-correct", but "wrong" in general is legion.

Nevertheless, among the variety of solutions, one can single out those that are usually meant when they speak of “correctness”. This is a frame of the American and, less often, Scandinavian type.

Why exactly are they considered examples of “correctness”? Everything is very simple. The overwhelming majority of private houses for permanent residence in America, and a very significant percentage in Scandinavia, are built using frame technology. This technology has been used there for more than a dozen and perhaps even a hundred years. During this time, all possible bumps have been filled, all possible options have been sorted out and a certain universal scheme has been found that says: do this and with a probability of 99.9% you will be fine. Moreover, this scheme is the optimal solution for several characteristics at once:

Constructive reliability of solutions.
Optimality in terms of labor costs during construction.
Optimal material costs.
Good thermal performance.

Why step on your own rake when you can take advantage of the experience of people who have already stepped on this rake? Why reinvent the wheel if it has already been invented?

Remember. Whenever we are talking about a “correct” frame or about “correct” nodes of a frame house, then, as a rule, this refers to standard solutions and nodes used in America and Scandinavia. And the frame itself meets all of the above criteria.

What wireframes can be called “semi-regular”? Basically, these are those that differ from typical Scandinavian-American solutions, but, nevertheless, also satisfy at least two criteria - structural reliability and good solutions in terms of heating technology.

Well, I would classify all the rest as “wrong”. Moreover, their "incorrectness" is often conditional. It is not at all a fact that the “wrong” frame will necessarily fall apart. Such a scenario is actually extremely rare in general, although it does occur. Basically, the "wrong" lies in some controversial and not the best solutions. As a result, it becomes difficult where it can be made easier. More material is used where less is possible. A colder or uncomfortable construction is made than it could be.

The main disadvantage of the "wrong" frameworks is that they do not give absolutely any benefits in comparison with the "correct" or "semi-correct" - neither in reliability, nor in cost, nor in labor costs ... nothing at all.

Or these benefits are far-fetched and generally questionable. In extreme cases (and there are some), the wrong frames can be dangerous and will lead to the fact that a major overhaul of the house will be required in a few years.

Now let's consider the issue in more detail.

Key features of the American frame

The American frame is practically the standard. It is simple, strong, functional and reliable as an iron saw. It is easy to assemble and has a large margin of safety.

Americans are tight-fisted guys, and if they manage to save a couple of thousand dollars on a construction site, they will definitely do it. At the same time, they will not be able to stoop to outright hack-work, since there is strict control in the construction industry, insurance companies will refuse payments in case of problems, and the customers of would-be builders will quickly sue and rip off negligent contractors like sticky.

Therefore, the American frame can be called a standard in terms of the ratio: price, reliability, result.

American frame is simple and reliable

Let's take a closer look at the main points that distinguish the American wireframe scheme:

Typical nodes of a frame house

A bar in racks and straps is almost never used, unless it is due to some specific conditions. Therefore, the first thing that distinguishes a “correct” frame house is the use of dry lumber and the absence of timber in the walls. By this criterion alone, you can discard 80% of Russian companies and teams working in the frame market.

Moments that distinguish the American frame:

Angles - there are several different schemes for implementing corners, but nowhere do you see timber as corner posts.
Double or triple racks in the area of window and door openings.
Reinforcement over the openings - a board installed on the edge. The so-called "header" (from the English header).
Double top rail from the board, no timber.
The overlap of the lower and upper row of the strapping at key points - corners, different fragments of the walls, the places of abutment of the inner partitions to the outer walls.

I did not specifically mention Ukosin as a distinctive moment. Since in the American style, if there is OSB3 (OSB) sheathing on the frame, there is no need for jibs. The slab can be viewed as an endless array of jibs.

Let's talk in more detail about the key features of the correct framework in the American version.

Correct corners of a frame house

In fact, on the Internet, even in the American segment, you can find a dozen schemes. But most of them are outdated and rarely used, especially in cold regions. I will highlight three basic corner patterns. Although really, only the first two are the main ones.

Nodes of corners of a frame house

Option 1 - the so-called "California" corner. The most common option. Why exactly “Californian” - I have no idea :). Another OSB board or strip is nailed from the inside to the extreme pillar of one of the walls. As a result, a shelf is formed on the inner part of the corner, which later serves as a support for the interior decoration or any inner layers of the wall.
Option 2 - closed corner. Also one of the most popular. The bottom line is an additional stand for making a shelf on an inner corner. Advantages: the quality of corner insulation is better than in option 1. Among the disadvantages: such a corner can only be insulated from the outside, that is, this must be done before sheathing the frame with anything outside (plates, membrane, etc.)
Option 3 - "Scandinavian" warm corner. A very rare variant, not used in America. Seen in Scandinavian frames, but not often. Why did I bring him then? Because, in my opinion, this is the warmest version of the corner. And I'm thinking about starting to apply it to our facilities. But before using it, you need to think about it, since it is constructively inferior to the first two and is not suitable everywhere.

What is special about all these three options and why is timber a bad option for a corner?

Corner from a bar, the most losing option

If you have noticed - in all three versions of the boards, the corner can be insulated. Somewhere more, somewhere less. In the case of a bar in the corner, we have 2 drawbacks at once: firstly, from the point of view of heating technology, such a corner will be the coldest. Secondly, if there is a timber in the corner, then there are no “shelves” from the inside to attach the interior trim to it.

Of course, the last question can be resolved. But remember what I said about the “wrong” wireframes? Why make it difficult if you can make it easier? Why make a timber, creating a cold bridge and thinking how to attach trim to it later, if you can make a warm corner from boards? Despite the fact that this will not affect the amount of material or the complexity of the work.

The openings and the top rail are the most significant difference between the American frame scheme and the Scandinavian one, but more on that later. So, when they talk about the correct openings in the frame, they usually talk about the following scheme (window and door openings are made according to the same principle).

Correct openings in a frame house

The first (1), which is usually paid attention to when talking about "wrong" openings, is double and even triple racks on the sides of the opening. It is often believed that this is necessary for some kind of reinforcement of the opening for the installation of a window or door. In fact this is not true. A window or door will be good on single racks. Why, then, are cohesive boards needed?

Everything is elementary. Remember when I said that the American frame is as simple and reliable as an iron saw? Pay attention to figure 2. And you will understand that cohesive racks are needed solely to support the elements lying on them. So that the edges of these elements do not hang on the nails. Simple, reliable and versatile.

Figure 3 is one of the simplified variations, when the bottom trim of the window cuts into the torn strut. But at the same time, both window trims still have supports at the edges.

Therefore, we cannot say formally about the fact that if the racks are not doubled, then this is “wrong”. They can also be single, as in the Scandinavian frame. Rather, it is a mistake when the posts along the edges of the openings are cohesive, but do not bear the load from the elements resting on them. In this case, they are simply meaningless.

In this case, the horizontal elements hang on the fasteners, so there is no point in doubling or tripling the racks on the sides.

Now let's talk about an element that is already more critical and the absence of which can be considered as an “incorrectness” of the opening. This is the “header” above the header.

Window header

This is a really important element. As a rule, some kind of load will come to the window or doorway from above - the floor joists of the second floor, the rafter system. And the wall itself is weakened by the deflection in the area of the opening. Therefore, local reinforcements are made in the openings. In American terms, these are headers. In fact, this is a board installed on the edge above the opening. Here it is already important that the edges of the header either rest on the racks (if the classic American scheme with close-knit racks of openings is used), or be cut into the outer racks, if they are single. Moreover, the section of the header directly depends on the loads and dimensions of the opening. The larger the opening and the stronger the load on it, the more powerful the header. It can also be double, built, extended in height, etc. - I repeat, it depends on the load. But, as a rule, for openings up to 1.5 m in width, a header from a 45x195 board is quite enough.

Is the absence of a header a sign of a "wrong" wireframe? Yes and no. If we act according to the American principle of “simple and reliable”, then the header should be present at every doorway. Do this and be sure of the result.

But in fact, you need to dance from the load on the opening from above. For example, a narrow window in a one-story house and the rafters on this section of the wall are located at the edges of the opening - the load on the opening from above is minimal and you can do without a header.

Therefore, the question of the header should be treated as follows. If you have one, great. If it is not there, then the builders (contractor) must clearly explain why, in their opinion, it is not needed here, but it will depend, first of all, on the load on the opening zone from above.

Double top rail

Double plank top rail, also a distinctive feature of the American frame

Double top rail

The double strapping again gives reinforcement along the top of the wall for deflection from the load from above - the load from the floor, rafters, etc. In addition, pay attention to the overlaps of the second row of the strapping.

Corner overlap - tie two perpendicular walls together.
Center overlap - connect 2 sections of one wall together.
Overlap on the partition - we tie the partition together with the outer wall.

Thus, the double strapping also performs the second task - to ensure the integrity of the entire structure of the walls.

In the domestic version, you can often find the upper strapping from a bar. And this, again, is not the best solution. Firstly, the timber is thicker than the double strapping. Yes, it may be better for deflection, but it is not a fact that it is necessary, but the cold bridge at the top of the wall will be more significant. Well, it is more difficult to implement this overlap to ensure the integrity of the entire structure. Therefore, we return again to the fact that why is it difficult to do, if you can make it easier and more reliable?

Correct jib in a frame house

Another cornerstone. Surely you have come across the phrase "jibs are made incorrectly." Let's talk about this. First, what is a jib? It is a diagonal element in the wall, which provides spatial shear stiffness in the lateral plane. Because thanks to the jib, a system of triangular structures appears, and the triangle is the most stable geometric figure.

So, when they talk about the correct jib, then usually we are talking about this option:

Correct jib

Why is such a jib called “correct” and what should you pay attention to?

Such a jib is installed with an angle of 45 to 60 degrees - this is the most stable triangle. Of course, the angle may be different, but this is the best range.
The jib cuts into the upper and lower harness, and not just rests against the rack - this is quite an important point, so we tie the structure together.
The jib crashes into every pillar in its path.
There must be at least two fastening points for each node - adjacent to the harness or rack. Since one point will give a “hinge” with a certain degree of freedom.
The jib cuts into the rib - this way it works better in the structure and less interferes with insulation.

And here is an example of the most “wrong” jib. But nevertheless, it is found all the time.

It's just a board stuck into the first opening of the frame. What is so “wrong” about it, because formally it is also a triangle?

First, a very small tilt angle.
Secondly, in such a plane, the jib board works worst of all.
Thirdly, it is difficult to fix such a jib to the wall.
Fourthly, pay attention to the fact that cavities that are extremely inconvenient for warming are formed in the places of abutment to the frame. Even if the jib is carefully trimmed and there will be no gap at the end, there is no way to get away from the sharp corner, and it is not an easy task to insulate such a corner with high quality, so most likely it will be done somehow.

Another example is also common. This is a jib cut into the posts, but not cut into the harness.

The jib is not cut into the harness

This option is already much better than the previous one, but, nevertheless, such a jib will work worse than one cut into the strapping, and the work will take 5 minutes more. And if, moreover, it is fixed to each rack with just one nail, then the effect from it will also be minimized.

We will not even consider the options for any small defective "jibs and struts" that do not extend from the upper strapping to the lower one.

Formally, even the very curve of the jib makes at least some contribution. But again: why do it your own way if you already have a good solution?

This concludes with the American frame and move on to the Scandinavian one.

Correct Scandinavian framework

Unlike America, where wireframes are practically standardized and there are very few differences, there are more variations in Scandinavia. Here you can find both the classic American frame and hybrid versions. The Scandinavian framework is, in fact, the development and modernization of the American one. Nevertheless, basically, when they talk about the Scandinavian frame, we are talking about such a design.

Typical Scandinavian home kit

Scandinavian frame

Corners, jibs - everything is like that of the Americans. What should you pay attention to?

Single strapping along the top of the wall.
Power transom, embedded in the posts throughout the entire wall.
Single racks on window and door openings.

In fact, the main difference is this very “Scandinavian” crossbar - it replaces both the American headers and the double harness, being a powerful force element.

What, in my opinion, is the advantage of the Scandinavian frame over the American one? The fact that it has a much greater emphasis on minimizing all kinds of cold bridges, which are almost all cohesive boards (double straps, openings). Indeed, between each cohesive boards, a gap can potentially form over time, which you may never know about. Well, it's one thing when the cold bridge has the width of one board, and another question is when there are already two or three of them.

Of course, you shouldn't dwell on cold bridges. There is still no way to get away from them, and in fact, their importance is often exaggerated. But, nevertheless, they are, and if it is possible to minimize them relatively painlessly, why not do it?

Scandinavians in general, unlike Americans, are very much confused about energy saving. The colder, northern climate and expensive energy sources also affect. But in terms of climate, Scandinavia is much closer to us (I'm talking primarily about the Northwest region) than most American states.

The disadvantage of the Scandinavian frame is in its slightly greater complexity, at least in the fact that in all racks you need to make cuts for the crossbar. And the fact that, unlike the American one, it still requires some kind of mental effort. For example: Large openings may require double struts to support horizontal elements, and additional transoms and headers. And somewhere, for example, on the gable walls of one-story buildings, where there is no load from the log or the roof - maybe the crossbar is not even required.

In general, the Scandinavian frame has certain advantages, but requires a little more effort and intelligence than the American one. If the American frame can be assembled with the brains completely turned off, then in Scandinavian it is better to turn them on, at least at the minimum mode.

"Semi-regular" frames

Let me remind you that by “semi-correct” I mean exactly those that have every right to exist, but differ from typical Scandinavian-American solutions. Therefore, it is necessary to be careful to call them “semi-correct”.

Here are some examples.

An example of how you can "overlook"

The first example from our own practice. This house was built by us, but according to the project provided by the customer. We even wanted to redo the project completely, but we were limited in terms of time, since we had to go to the object; in addition, the customer paid a tangible amount for the project and formally there are no structural violations, but he resigned himself to the voiced shortcomings of the current solution.

Why, then, did I classify this framework as “semi-correct”? Please note that there are Scandinavian crossbars, American headers, and double straps not only at the top, but also at the bottom of the walls. In short, there is an American scheme, and a Scandinavian one, and another 30% of the stock is thrown on top in Russian, just in case. Well, the prefabricated rack of 6 (!!!) boards under the glued ridge beam speaks for itself. Indeed, in this place, the only insulation is isoplat outside, and cross insulation from the inside. And if there was a purely American scheme, then there would simply be no insulation in this section of the wall, a bare piece of wood from outside to inside.

I call this frame “semi-correct” because from the point of view of constructive reliability there are no complaints about it. There is a multiple margin of safety "in the event of an atomic war." But the abundance of cold bridges, and a huge waste of material for the frame, and high labor costs of work, which also affects the price.

This house could be made with a smaller, but sufficient margin of safety, but at the same time, to reduce the amount of lumber by 30 percent and significantly reduce the number of cold bridges, making the house warmer.

Another example is the “double volumetric” frame, promoted by a Moscow company.

The main difference is actually a double outer wall, with racks spaced apart from each other. So the frame fully meets the criteria of strength and is very good from the point of view of heat engineering, due to the minimization of cold bridges, but loses in manufacturability. The problem of eliminating cold bridges, which, first of all, is solved by such a frame, can be solved by simpler, more reliable and correct methods such as “cross-warming”.

And, curiously, usually “semi-correct” frameworks somehow have Scandinavian-American solutions. And the differences are more in an attempt to improve the good. But it often happens that “the best is the enemy of the good”.

Such frameworks can be safely called “semi-correct” precisely because there are no gross violations here. There are differences from typical American-Scandinavian solutions in attempts to improve something or come up with some kind of "trick". It is up to the customer to pay for them or not.

"Wrong" frame houses

Now let's talk about the “wrong” wireframes. The most typical, I would even say, collective, case is presented in the photo below.

The quintessence of "directional" frame housing construction

What can be immediately noted in this photo?

Total use of natural moisture material. Moreover, the material is massive, which dries out most of all and changes its geometry during the drying process.
The beams in the corners and on the straps and even on the racks are cold bridges and inconvenience in further work.
Lack of headers and reinforcement of openings.
Do not understand how a made jib, poorly fulfilling its role and interfering with insulation.
Assembly on corners with black self-tapping screws, the purpose of which is to fasten the gypsum board during finishing (and not use in power structures).

The photo above shows almost the quintessence of what is commonly called the “wrong” frame or “RSK”. The abbreviation RSK appeared in 2008 at FH, at the suggestion of one builder who presented a similar product to the world, called Russian Power Frame. Over time, as people began to figure out what's what, this abbreviation began to decipher as Rashen Strasen Karkashen. As the apotheosis of meaninglessness with a claim to a unique solution.

What is most curious, if desired, it can be attributed to "semi-correct": if the screws do not rot (black phosphated screws are by no means a sample of corrosion resistance) and do not burst with the inevitable shrinkage of the timber, this frame is unlikely to fall apart. That is, such a structure has the right to life.

What is the main disadvantage of “wrong” wireframes? If people understand what they are doing, they quickly come to the Canadian-Scandinavian scheme. Fortunately, there is now a lot of information. And if they do not come, then it says one thing: they, by and large, do not care about the result. The classic answer when you try to ask them why this is exactly - “we have always built this way, no one has complained”. That is, the entire construction is based solely on intuition and ingenuity. Without trying to inquire - how is it generally accepted to do this.

What prevented you from making a board instead of a bar? Do you reinforce the openings? Make normal jibs? Collect on nails? That is, do it right? After all, such a frame does not give any advantages! One big set of not the best solutions with a claim to super strength, etc. Moreover, the labor input is the same as that of the “correct” one, the cost is the same, and the material consumption is, perhaps, even higher.

Summarize

As a result: it is customary to call the American-Scandinavian frame scheme “correct”, because it has already been repeatedly tested on thousands of houses, proving its viability and the optimal ratio of “labor-input-reliability-quality”.

All other types of frames are referred to as "semi-correct" and "incorrect". At the same time, the frame can be quite reliable, but not “optimal” in terms of the above.

As a rule, if potential contractors cannot justify the use of certain design solutions other than the “correct” American-Scandinavian ones, this suggests that they have no idea about these “correct” solutions and are building a house solely on a whim. replacing knowledge with intuition and ingenuity. And this is a very risky path that may come back to haunt the owner of the house in the future.

So. Do you want guaranteed correct, optimal decisions? Pay attention to the classic American or Scandinavian frame house construction scheme.

about the author

Hello. My name is Alexey, you may have met me as Porcupine or Gribnick on the Internet. I am the founder of Finnish House, a project that has grown from a personal blog into a construction company whose goal is to build a quality and comfortable home for you and your children.

What can't you build a house without? Without walls, of course.

Frame house walls- This is the second important element after the floor lag. Let's take a closer look at the wall.

I have a separate post on the "pies" of the wall, so in this post we will focus exclusively on the wooden frame.

It consists of 4 main parts (in brackets their name in the Canadian frame housing construction, so that you can then find them in the search and look from all angles):
Bottom strapping(Bottom Plate)
Rack(Studs)
Top strapping(Top Plate)
Second top harness(Double Top Plate)

Bottom strapping(Bottom Plate) - ties the posts from below, the Top Plate from above, together: the posts and two ties form a strong frame wall. Racks(Studs) in a frame wall must go with a certain step, usually in Russia this step is chosen 600mm or 625mm(depending on what kind of insulation and paneling is used). At the same time, if you make walls from a board 100 mm wide (and not standard 150 mm), then the spacing of the racks should be no more than 400 mm.

Second top harness(Double Top Plate) is optional in some cases, but usually it is placed, since it evenly distributes the load from the slab over the frame walls.
There are two main rules regarding the second top harness:
1) it must dock on the racks(Studs).
2) it should dock no closer, than 2 racks in relation to the joints of the upper harness(Top Plate) - look at the photo below how it looks.
In this case, the second upper trim on the wall is optional if the floor joists above it are located exactly above its uprights.

More about stance spacing

.
When we choose rack spacing, it makes sense to focus on:
1) outer cladding (usually OSB-3)
2) inner lining (usually gypsum plasterboard)
3) insulation

Let's take a closer look.
1) Step of racks under OSB-3 1250 × 2500 (the sheet is placed horizontally)
627 mm
417 mm
2) Step of racks under gypsum plasterboard 1250 × 2500 (the sheet is placed horizontally)
627 mm
417 mm
By the way, the influence of the gypsum board on the step of the racks can be neglected if it is attached to the crate (often made with insulation inside).
3) Step of racks for insulation 1200 × 600 with uprights 40 (50) mm thick
625-630 mm
Step of racks for insulation 1200 × 560 with uprights 40 mm thick
590 mm
Step of racks for insulation 1200 × 560 with 50 mm thick posts
600 mm
Step of racks for insulation 1000 × 500 with racks 40 (50) mm thick
525-535 mm

Thus, the optimal spacing of the racks with OSB-3, gypsum board and insulation 600 mm wide is 627 mm... With others, you need to choose: either cut the insulation, or cut OSB-3, or cut the gypsum board. The easiest way to cut the insulation, the gypsum board is also not a problem to cut, but cutting OSB-3 is no more dreary. By the way, the gypsum board can also be installed vertically. In some cases even OSB-3 can be placed vertically, but it is not recommended.

In my case, I generally preferred do not use OSB-3, and sheathe the house with a 100 × 25 board at an angle of 45 degrees. This way I got away from the OSB-3 problem. GCR I have through the crate and it can also be ignored. It turned out that all I had to do was choose a lag step for insulation, I chose 625 mm(on the picture).

Frame wall nodes in pictures:

We will talk separately about the design of openings (windows and doors) in frame walls, because many more new elements are added there.

Bonus:
How to raise the walls of a house along the platform:

You will need several people wearing blue or white T-shirts.

What the assembled walls of the house look like:

So, now you know how to build a wall with your own hands. If you do not want to build on your own, you can always contact me and I will find a reliable team for you in your area.

Good afternoon (night, morning - how anyone) to everyone!
I read SNiPs here, looked at the requirements for fastening various plate materials, read bourgeois books (special thanks to the author of a selection of links posted on the forum). Then he counted a little and became thoughtful. Namely:
About the thickness of the frame of the frame house. SNiP requirement: distance from the edge of the lumber to the axis of the dowel (nail, screw) 3 - 3.5d. The requirement for fastening Greenboard 3, DSP, OSB - 15 mm from the edge of the sheet (and more). The recommended diameter of self-tapping screws is 3.9 - 4.2 mm. Accordingly, the thickness of the rack on which the joint of the slab materials occurs should be at least: 3.9x3x2 + 15x2 = 53.4 mm (if the slab material is installed without a gap between the sheets). If you need a gap between the board material, then the thickness of the rack must be greater ...
About the height of the rack. Based on the strength requirements for wooden structures according to SNiP with a rack thickness of 50 mm, its maximum height can be 266 mm, with a thickness of 45 mm - 240 mm, with a thickness of 40 mm - 213 mm. At the same time, the maximum load on a rack 50 mm thick and 150 mm wide at a height of 266 mm can be no more than 1507 kgf (the calculation is correct for wood with a moisture content of no more than 12%, as I did not find it for other moisture). I was sitting here, calculating the loads on the racks of the first floor of a frame house for my beloved and straining a little - I got a margin of safety less than 20% with a rack spacing of 600 mm along the axes, and on the central load-bearing wall I barely fit in a 400 mm step (I will today to recalculate the loads again - something turns out to be a very heavy house). Maybe, of course, according to the old Russian habit, I try to overlook, but ...
This is where my questions arose: how do gentlemen of practice attach slab material to racks with a thickness of 50 mm and less, taking into account the fact that manufacturers of slab material demand to install screws strictly at an angle of 90 degrees to the plane of the sheet?
How are the struts of the frame reinforced, taking into account the requirements for strength and real loads?
Is this very slab material needed in the frame at all? Actually, as far as I understand, the displacement of the frame from the vertical is affected by wind loads plus unevenly distributed vertical ones? If so, then it seems to me that two or three correctly installed jibs in each wall should be enough?
Off-top: I talked here with several Moscow companies that make frame houses ... (many unprintable words) ... transfer of loads through window and door frames, 4-meter spans with 45x145 beams with a step of 600 mm ... to the question on what basis the design decisions were made - answer on the basis of SNiP, I ask how they thought - but we do not think ... When using dry lumber (not the fact that it will be dry), not only material, but also work becomes more expensive ...
I had to sit down to design it myself - I really don't want to sit in a bath on the second floor and be on the first ... And the budget, alas, is severely limited ...
About the "pie" of floors. I see the following designs for dry rooms:
1. Greenboard 3R - 22 mm
2. Plywood - 21 mm
3. Plywood - 15 mm with scraping of joints
4. Cork backing - 2 mm
5. Laminate - 9.5 mm
For wet rooms:
1. Greenboard 3R - 22 mm
2. Waterproofing
3. Aquapanel Knauf - 12.5 mm
4. Thin-layer flexible flexible cable Knauf Boden 15 with carbon cables of "warm floor" recessed into it - 18 mm
5. Tile adhesive Knauf Flex - 5 mm
6. Ceramic tile - 10 mm
In both cases, the thickness of the "pie" is 69.5 mm (it is clear that I will lose 0.5 mm and it will be 70).
That’s what I didn’t find ... If I put a multi-span beam and put a wall on top of it in places where it is supported, then logically I get a rigid seal in all places where the beam is supported. And then how to calculate it for strength and deflection? Where to look at the formulas ... Or count it as several single-span beams?

External walls of a frame house

Usually a board with a section of 150 x 50 mm or 100 mm x 50 mm is used for external walls. The climate of Central Russia allows you to get by with a layer of insulation of 150 mm with standard board materials (mineral wool or foam). If you plan to reduce heating costs to a minimum, then it makes sense to install an additional 50 mm layer of mineral wool inside or outside to remove cold bridges, but in any case, the frame of the external walls from a 150 x 50 mm board is sufficient to build a house with a height of 2 floors ...

Rack installation spacing: 407 and 610 mm. In which case, which step to choose? First of all, you need to look at the project. If you are both a builder and the author of a project of your own frame house, then make the choice yourself. There is no ready-made solution. A step of 610 mm allows you to carry all the loads of a 2-storey building and is well suited for the installation of mineral wool slabs. A pitch of 407 mm is more advantageous from the point of view of installing drywall inside, since for a sheet with a thickness of 12.5 mm, this is the limiting distance between the posts and creates the risk of cracks in the interior decoration. In North America, for a pitch of 610 mm, drywall is used with a thickness of 15 mm, but we do not have this on sale. A simple table will help you avoid mistakes in choosing the section and pitch of the racks for walls up to 3 m high:

In Russia, a pitch of 610 mm is usually chosen, which is more convenient for installing mineral wool without cutting. In North America, 407 (16 "OC) mm pitch is most common, even for single story homes.

The next step is to apply to the projection of all walls. Tape measure and chalk twine are used. Next, we select the most even boards for the upper and lower elements of the frame walls. Saw off according to the size of their projection on the platform. We grab the upper and lower boards with nails, clamps or self-tapping screws.

Using a tape measure, mark the position of the racks. In order to avoid mistakes, the position of the posts is marked with a cross or a checkbox to the right or left of the mark. Also notes the position of both doorways and their elements.

Please note that the first board from the corner must be offset from the standard pitch of 407 mm or 610 mm by ½ the thickness of the rack. This is done so that the sheathing sheets lie on the racks and the joint falls in their middle. It is better to apply the markings with a metal tape measure. Plastic will give an error when stretched.

After applying the markings to the end of the boards, carefully using a square, transfer the markings to the wide part of the lower and upper wall trim, marking the position of the racks with a cross or other mark. All this may seem superfluous, but only until the first mistake. Then it is no longer necessary to persuade to mark the line of the position of the rack on the harness and the side on which the rack will be located on it. Try to learn from the mistakes of others. Then we remove the clamps or take out the nails and the boards are spaced at a distance equal to the length of the uprights. We are ready to assemble the frame walls. We start with.