A question for all the experienced ones:
I am drawing construction details for our future vacation house. I had drawn the connection between the exterior walls and the floor joists as I have seen, among other places, in the timber guide and in some book: Walls standing on the floor, so to speak. But when I talked to a constructor, he suggested that I should extend the studs down outside the joists and fasten them with hex head screws "from the outside." He said that it provided better moment absorption, which he is, of course, right about. The question is whether it is needed.
Pictures below of the two variants.
What do you see as the advantages/disadvantages of the two?
The cabin will be about 60sqm with a cathedral ceiling over half of the house.
I will also start a project thread in the future when the start notice is ready.
The joist (220) is recessed in the supporting beam (2x220) with joist hangers, and it will all rest on a post foundation.
The studs are 170.
Alt 1: The wall entirely on the floor joist.
Alt 2: The stud extends down the side of the floor joist.
The stud wall must have some form of support. Either it's standing on top of the floor joists or it's resting on the foundation wall. It cannot hang by lag screws at the ends of the floor joists. The roof loads, which the external walls are tasked with transferring down, can become quite large. I don't understand the talk about moment capacity at all. It is hardly relevant at that point.
Clarification perhaps with the drawing below. In the case of "alt 2" approximately 55% of the beam rests on the support beam/floor structure, or on an upper sill that rests on the floor structure.
Yes, option 1 makes sense. There, the standing studs in the wall rest entirely on a sill that lies on the floor joists. Then there is space for a thin edge insulation of the floor framework that reduces thermal bridges. That is how I would build. In option 2, the standing stud is either notched or only partially stands on the floor joists. This must be a worse alternative.
