Can I tear down this wall? Is it load-bearing? Drawing available

[ollesthlm]

I have just bought a new apartment and am considering tearing down a wall. The question is whether it's load-bearing or not.

Facts:

The building was constructed in 1956
5th of 5 floors (top floor)
Sloping ceiling above me with a ridge height of 180 cm, so no attic.
The walls marked in red are to be demolished.
The interior walls I want to tear down are made of brick with about 1-2 cm of plaster on each side. They are about 15 cm thick in total. In other words, quite solid, but so are most of the other interior walls.
The walls marked in blue are thicker concrete walls that are definitely load-bearing. Between them, there is an equally thick beam towards the ceiling, which is about 30 cm high. The blue-marked wall next to the wall I want to tear down is about 40-50 cm wide and about 30 cm thick. The other blue-marked wall on the other side is 1 meter wide and about 30 cm thick, and between them towards the ceiling, there is a beam connecting them.

My thought is that the blue-marked walls are load-bearing, while the red-marked ones are not. The reason I ask is that the walls I want to tear down are still quite solidly built.

I know I should contact a structural engineer for consultation, but I still want to feel out what you in the forum think about this. Of course, I also know that the housing association should be contacted, etc. etc.

 

[b8q]

Since it is a bostadsrätt, you still need the association's permission, so check with them - they may have addressed this issue in another apartment before, and if not, the association should have access to building plans and possibly contacts with a structural engineer.

 

[ollesthlm]

Well, this thing about the association's condition etc. I already know. It's holiday season and I can't get in touch with anyone. I just wanted to know if the wall is load-bearing or not..

 

[Krawk]

It seems that the red ones are load-bearing/stabilizing since an effort has been made to construct a transfer/support beam out of concrete.

However, it might still be possible to resolve since you only have a roof above your apartment.

 

[JanneL]

I believe you are right that the red walls are not load-bearing. I also have a condominium with similar "pillars" (the blue ones) that you have. However, my interior walls are made of lightweight concrete.

 

[ollesthlm]

It seems likely that the red ones are load-bearing/stabilizing since they made an effort to build a support beam of concrete.

However, it might still be possible to solve since you only have a roof above your apartment.

So the beam is situated between the blue-marked walls. Not towards the outer wall.
My thought was that if this wall I want to tear down were load-bearing, they would have made the wall equally thick all the way to the outer wall.
But on the other hand, you would lose some floor space then.

I'm not quite sure about this. Any more good thoughts on this?

 

[Krawk]

Sure, I'm completely on board with how it looks. The beam takes over where the wall ends. The brick wall doesn't need to be as thick since it carries a distributed load. However, the blue wall/column carries a point load from the beam.

If it is indeed load-bearing. (If the drawing is correct and there's 2+2cm plaster on the wall, there aren't many cm of brick left. But maybe the architect wasn't so particular about it...)

Do you not have access to any construction drawings? Or reinforcement drawings?

By the way, the red wall out towards the hallway is probably not load-bearing. I forgot to mention that before.

 

[ollesthlm]

Yes, I completely understand how it looks. The beam takes over where the wall ends. The brick wall doesn't need to be as thick because it bears a distributed load. However, the blue wall/column bears a point load from the beam.

If it is indeed load-bearing. (If the drawing is accurate and there is 2+2cm plaster on the wall, there aren't many cm of brick left. But perhaps the architect wasn't too careful with that...)

Do you have access to any construction drawings? Or a reinforcement drawing?

By the way, the red wall towards the hall is probably not load-bearing. Forgot to write that before.

The wall is about 15 cm thick with the plaster being about 1-2 cm on each side. This makes the bricks about 11-13 cm wide. I only have similar drawings to the ones I published here. No others were available at the municipality. The plan drawing isn't entirely 100% accurate. All the red-marked walls are the same thickness (15 cm) and of the same construction.

An interesting thought if the walls are load-bearing is: What happens if I remove them anyway. After all, I live at the very top.

I would like to know if it is common to have non-load-bearing walls made of brick/plaster in the thickness I have.

 

[Krawk]

It feels like a rather thin wall, but it doesn't need to bear as much as those on the floors below.
If you tear down the wall and it's load-bearing, you might end up with the entire roof on your head.

Is it concrete even above your apartment? How is it supported in that case? Support on stairwell wall-middle wall-gable wall?
What do the roof trusses rest on? The outer wall or your ceiling joist?

As mentioned, there is likely a reason why a large support with concrete pillar/beam has been put there. Find out what this supports and you are at least closer to a solution.

 

[ollesthlm]

I chose the safe option. Bought glulam beams and glulam pillars. Then rented a prop.

Installed the prop and tore down the wall between the kitchen and the hallway (it was 220 cm wide and had a 70 cm wide doorway).
No signs at all of pressure from above. It probably would have worked without a glulam beam, in other words.
Anyhow, I installed a 90*90 mm glulam pillar on each side and double 42*180 mm glulam beams as a header.
I planned to use the same dimensions, meaning 90*90 mm pillars and double 42*180 mm beams for the other wall that is about 250 cm wide (the wall between the kitchen and living room).

I must have done a proper support that should be more than sufficient, right?

See my sketch below.

 

[Krawk]

The floor plan suggests that the wall towards the hall likely does not have the same structural function as the wall towards the living room.

Furthermore, you went from: "contact a building constructor/engineer"
To: [tear down and see if it collapses]

You plan to switch out a floor with a 180mm high glue-laminated beam when the original construction has a 300mm high reinforced concrete beam in the corresponding location?

And you're doing this, not in a single-family home that you solely own and live in, but in a five-story building that is likely a housing cooperative?!

...

 

[Rigel]

The floor plan suggests that the wall towards the hallway likely does not have the same structural function as the wall towards the living room.

Furthermore, you went from: "contact a building constructor/engineer"
To: [tear it down and see if it collapses]

You're planning to support a floor structure with a 180mm high glulam beam when the original construction has a 300mm high reinforced concrete beam in the equivalent position?

And you're doing this, not in a house you solely own and live in, but in a five-story building that is likely a housing cooperative?!

...

No, as I understood it, he didn't tear down the beam but only the wall that's marked in red with a door opening.

Regardless, I don't understand why you're going and buying glulam beams and planning to support walls with them when you don't know if they're load-bearing or not.

I renovated a similar apartment from 1947 and the interior walls (non-load-bearing) at that time were made of mortar mixed with some pumice stone/lightweight clinker variant. What you can easily do to get a hint if the wall is load-bearing or not is to chisel a hole in the top edge of the wall where it connects to the floor structure. You likely have a concrete floor structure and if you see a wood pattern on the underside of the concrete, you can be fairly certain that the floor structure was cast before the wall was erected, and it is therefore not load-bearing.

In any case, I think it's completely crazy to start supporting walls recklessly.

 

[Krawk]

I am completely sure that he tore down the wall towards the hall and not the beam.

 

[ollesthlm]

No, as I understood it, he didn't tear down the beam but only the wall that is marked in red with a door opening.

Regardless, I don't understand why you're buying glued laminated beams and should offset walls whether you know they are load-bearing or not.

I renovated a similar apartment from 1947, and the interior walls (non-load-bearing) at that time were made of mortar mixed with some pumice/lightweight aggregate variant. What you can easily do to get a hint if the wall is load-bearing or not is to chip a hole at the top of the wall where it connects to the floor slab. You probably have a concrete floor slab, and if you see a plank pattern on the underside of the concrete, you can be fairly sure that the floor slab was cast before the wall was erected and is not load-bearing.

Either way, I think it's completely insane to start offsetting walls haphazardly.

Oh, oh dear. Now, I'm not a mere amateur but fairly experienced. I've also had some craftsmen look at the walls to be demolished. Most have thought they're not load-bearing and more or less said DEMOLISH. However, these people are not engineers, but still. Additionally, the chairman of the BRF told the real estate agent that the walls are probably not load-bearing and that they can be removed as long as the blue-marked walls remain. Which they also do. To be on the safe side, I chose to offset with glued laminated pillars and a glued laminated beam. Since the walls are relatively short, one ought not to use the chunkiest glued laminated beams. Still, I'm using double 42*180 on top of 90*90 pillars.

Glued laminated wood is incredibly strong (often as strong as a steel beam). I do believe that the offsetting is sufficient, but I could be wrong. However, I didn't want to get into a discussion about whether it's insanely done or whether I should have contacted designers/engineers or not. I neither have the time nor the option for this.

Back to the facts. I live at the VERY top. There's a "crawl attic" with 180 cm in ridge height above me. So, no extreme loads from above. No indications of any pressure from above when I knocked down the wall against the hallway. Additionally, offsetting with glued laminated beams.

Do you think the offsetting is too weak, or should I do it another way, or what?! I'm getting quite dizzy now.

Those of you who have responded, do you have experience with such matters or how did you reason when you replied?

 

[Rigel]

Oh oh oops. Now I'm not some happy amateur but fairly experienced. I've also had some craftsmen look at the walls that need to be torn down. Most have thought they weren't load-bearing and have more or less said TEAR DOWN. However, these people aren't engineers, but still. Additionally, the chairman of the BRF told the broker that the walls probably aren't load-bearing and that they can be removed as long as the blue-marked walls remain. Which they also do.
To be on the safe side, I still chose to brace with glulam columns and glulam beams.
Since the walls are relatively short, one shouldn't use the coarsest glulam beams. I'm still going with double 42*180 on top of 90*90 columns.

Glulam is incredibly strong (often as strong as steel beams). I think the bracing is sufficient, but I might be wrong. However, I didn't want to get into a discussion on whether it's done wrong or whether I should have contacted constructors/engineers or not. I neither have the time nor the possibility for this.

Back to facts. I live on the TOP floor. There is a "creep attic" with 180 cm at the ridge height above me. So, no extreme loads from above. No signs of any pressure from above when I tore down the wall against the hallway. Additionally, bracing with glulam beams.

Do you think the bracing is too weak, or should I do something differently, or what?! I'm getting all dizzy now.

Those of you who answered, do you have experience with such things, or how did you reason when you responded?

As I mentioned earlier, I did exactly as you. What kind of flooring do you have above you?

What I really mean is that if the wall isn't load-bearing (which I don't believe it is), then it feels very unnecessary to brace it.