Today, it feels like there is a tendency to oversize everything just to have both belt and suspenders. I recently had two carpenters who built a new load-bearing wall inside the outer wall to accommodate new large window openings. They could hardly believe their eyes when they saw the construction of the outer wall. (Split-level house from '58 with a brick cellar, concrete slab. Wooden frame on floor 2. A total of 300 m2.)
From inside to out:
21mm vertical rough boards
70 mm vertical studs cc 1500!!
70mm horizontal studs cc 55 between the vertical ones.
Tretex board 15mm
Battens
Facade
No kind of beam above the 1500 mm wide windows...
This incredibly weak construction has thus carried the house without any problems for the past 55 years and would probably have continued to do so for another 55 years if I hadn't wanted to completely change the floor plan. This makes one realize how insanely we exaggerate today's dimensions with 195 and 220 studs in the frame. Sure, insulation requirements are higher today but still...
From inside to out:
21mm vertical rough boards
70 mm vertical studs cc 1500!!
70mm horizontal studs cc 55 between the vertical ones.
Tretex board 15mm
Battens
Facade
No kind of beam above the 1500 mm wide windows...
This incredibly weak construction has thus carried the house without any problems for the past 55 years and would probably have continued to do so for another 55 years if I hadn't wanted to completely change the floor plan. This makes one realize how insanely we exaggerate today's dimensions with 195 and 220 studs in the frame. Sure, insulation requirements are higher today but still...
Last edited:
Yes, one probably has a tendency to exaggerate a bit.
I opened up a bay window on my house last fall, from the inside I have original: tretex, råspont, vertical 2"x4", air gap with insulation, facade brick. Built in 1965.
At the existing windows, they had cut a 2"x4" and placed it on top of the vertical ones at the outer edge. Windows of 130cm. Many of the vertical ones are also jointed, meaning they have used scraps, even directly under the rafters.
When I made a 2-meter opening, I inserted a glulam beam of 90x315mm... Sure, it's a 2-meter opening instead of 130, but if a spåntad 2"x4" has managed it, there should be more safety in today's construction.
I opened up a bay window on my house last fall, from the inside I have original: tretex, råspont, vertical 2"x4", air gap with insulation, facade brick. Built in 1965.
At the existing windows, they had cut a 2"x4" and placed it on top of the vertical ones at the outer edge. Windows of 130cm. Many of the vertical ones are also jointed, meaning they have used scraps, even directly under the rafters.
When I made a 2-meter opening, I inserted a glulam beam of 90x315mm... Sure, it's a 2-meter opening instead of 130, but if a spåntad 2"x4" has managed it, there should be more safety in today's construction.
They probably overdid it back then too, with all walls made of standing 3" tongued planks nailed together with a myriad of large nails, trusses in a broken roof with short spans of 3"7 cc 80, joists 3"7 cc 80 cm, 1" tongued flooring and so on. Timber for 3-4 modern houses, at least, built in 1937.
We opened up at our stairs and inserted an oversized glulam beam all the way instead of the "stick" that went halfway. Suddenly, the floors upstairs stopped creaking. So certainly the old dimensions hold together, but it creaks in the joints...
It's not a HultsredsHus you have, can't really tell from the picture. They were constructed so that even the windows were part of the load-bearing structure, and it then looks a bit flimsy compared to today's building methods.MagnusSt said:
It depends a bit on how you see it...my impression is that in houses from the 1910s, 20s, and 30s, the dimensions tend to be even more robust than today. Then, it is more in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and maybe 80s where some constructions might be more sparingly dimensioned and then become sturdier again. That's my impression, which of course can be completely wrong and what is really over- or under-dimensioned I have no competence to determine.
The reason for having wider wall studs today is to accommodate more insulation, not because "it was too weak before." It's hard to fit 220mm insulation in a wall built with 95 timber...
I don't think the wall studs in our house from -36 are much stronger than 70mm + råspont and tretex.
I don't think the wall studs in our house from -36 are much stronger than 70mm + råspont and tretex.
Last edited:
A
Alfred Jonsson
Banned
· Västra Götaland
· 208 posts
Alfred Jonsson
Banned
- Västra Götaland
- 208 posts
Sure, we build more stable structures today, but during extreme weather, it feels reassuring.
Where I live, we often have winds over 30m/s, which means enormous forces.
30m/s means a force of over 500 Newton/sqm, which is equivalent to about 200 hp per square meter!!
If there is also a lot of snow that then becomes wet and heavy, it's significant weights resting on the roofs.
No, I believe that today we have fairly reasonable regulations for durability in Sweden.
Where I live, we often have winds over 30m/s, which means enormous forces.
30m/s means a force of over 500 Newton/sqm, which is equivalent to about 200 hp per square meter!!
If there is also a lot of snow that then becomes wet and heavy, it's significant weights resting on the roofs.
No, I believe that today we have fairly reasonable regulations for durability in Sweden.
A
Alfred Jonsson
Banned
· Västra Götaland
· 208 posts
Alfred Jonsson
Banned
- Västra Götaland
- 208 posts
Hmm, nah, I got that a bit wrong..Dr Fozz said:Physics is not your strong suit, is it?
:blushing:
But the force of 500 Newtons per square meter is quite accurate, it was the conversion to HP that was incorrect.
To be picky (and it's good when dealing with physics...) you measure force in Newtons, pressure in Newtons per square meter, and power is usually measured in watts (and why anyone would want to measure power when talking about how wind affects houses I have no idea....)
Translate to km/h so most people understand much better the speed of the wind, km/h is something most can relate to.
30 m/s should be roughly 108 km/h...good speed!!!
30 m/s should be roughly 108 km/h...good speed!!!
By the way, Glufsglufs, I once saw a letter to the editor where someone suggested that road signs should be changed to m/s instead of km/h since m/s is more standard. It received a reply a few days later: "How would it look with so many zeros on the signs?" :-D
Hehe d^_^bAnna_H said: