Studs through floor/ceiling - load-bearing?

[justusandersson]

How many studs are there? What are their dimensions? How tall are they (in this plane)?

 

[enSAM]

I see that you have started tearing down the wall except for the studs, what did it look like above the opening that was in the wall? Was there any reinforcement there that indicates it is/was a load-bearing wall? If not, could it be that the wall that remains towards the living room is the load-bearing wall? That wall is more in line with the wall between the kitchen and bedroom.

 

[Carro_D]

How many studs are there? What are their dimensions? How tall are they (in this plane)?

4 pcs 2"5, about 2.80 m tall

 

[Carro_D]

I see that you started tearing down the wall except for the posts, what did it look like above the opening that was in the wall? Was there any reinforcement there indicating that it is/was a load-bearing wall? If not, could it be that the wall remaining towards the living room is the load-bearing wall? That wall is more in line with the wall between the kitchen and bedroom.

No, there was no reinforcement above the door. I'm definitely hoping that it's the living room wall that's load-bearing.

 

[justusandersson]

I am, of course, keeping my fingers crossed that it's the living room wall that's load-bearing.

No, that's not how they built even in 1919.

If you work backwards and assume what four studs 2x5 inches, 2.8 meters high, of decent quality and braced in the weakest direction, could potentially handle at most, placed in the most unfavorable position, then they could be replaced by a laminated beam that can handle about 60 kNm. This makes 90x450, 115x405, and 140x360. The beam must rest on 115x115 laminated columns. Calculating in this way implies over-dimensioning, but also that you don't need to spend more time on it.

 

[Carro_D]

No, that's not even how they built in 1919.

If you calculate backwards and assume that four studs 2x5 inches, 2.8 meters in height, of decent quality and braced in the weakest direction, could maximally handle, placed in the most disadvantageous position, they could be replaced by a glue-lam beam capable of approximately 60 kNm. This results in 90x450, 115x405, and 140x360. The beam must rest on 115x115 glue-lam columns. Calculating this way means an over-dimensioning, but also that you don't need to spend more time on it.

Thank you so much for the detailed answer! Those would be substantial beams then, but I understand they are calculated for the worst-case scenario. May I ask what you mean by saying they didn't build like that in 1919? Why can't the living room wall be the load-bearing one, then?

 

[justusandersson]

Why can't the living room wall be the load-bearing one, then?

Theoretically yes, but I don't think so because the house becomes wider. You can also see it on the floor plan. This is not entirely easy to explain. You have to look for structures. Besides, I haven't seen the house in reality.

 

[heimlaga]

It looks like a load-bearing wall. Definitely.
I think justusanderson has a reasonable solution to the problem.

 

[GoForIt]

An important aspect when unloading is ensuring that the location where you place the setup/pillars can support the weight, to prevent problems elsewhere.

 

[Carro_D]

Considering bringing a carpenter over during the week to see if they can do the job. I've never dealt with load-bearing walls and you definitely don't want to make a mistake here.