I would not suggest doing it that way. The picture of the wall in the illustration .... labels the wall on the right side as: a 'load bearing wall'. It is not a load bearing wall, but just 'a wall'.
Let me try to explain it:
A load bearing wall carries the load above it 'dispersed' along it's length.
The load that 'it' is carrying is also a 'dispersed' load. That load bearing wall carries the joists above it - (those joists are placed 16 OC and sitting in a 'line' .... on the load bearing wall's top plate)
The weight is sitting all along the wall on top of each stud:
Each stud in a load bearing wall, is placed underneath each joist -16 OC.
Underneath that load bearing wall, is the main carrying beam supporting all of that weight above it....dispersed along it's entire length. Underneath the main carrying beam are the lalley columns attached to 12" thick concrete footings, underneath that is solid earth (hopefully solid)...
So, then, there is solid material underneath each joist and congruently under each stud.....from top to bottom....all the way down to the concrete footing foundation....
What the original poster wants to support is NOT a 'dispersed' load.
They want to support a single post (one of two), which is carrying the weight of much more on it (the new beam and what they have shored up - on top of it)
Sitting one end of all that weight (that single post) in one small area ..... and then transferring that weight to a beam is fine.
However, to then propose to sit one end of that load bearing beam on just a normal wall (shown on the right side in the illustration)............ is not a structural design. That would not be placing 'solid' material from 'top to bottom'. As stated above, that 'wall', is in fact, not a 'load bearing' wall .....and it would be the 'weak link' in constructing a load bearing frame.
- Build Well -
Last edited by AtlanticWBConst.; 02-16-2007 at 07:50 AM.