I have some questions about construction and the pros/cons of certain types of construction methods.
I have inherited a house built in the 1930s. It has a basement and 3 floors above it. Residential building, 300 sqm.
The basement is about 100 sqm.
I understand that it is built with standing timber which is then plastered.
Question 1
In the 80s, the foundation was widened and a "thin brick" was added. This means the brick façade is only 1 cm outside the foundation. Wasn't it more common to mount heavy angle irons and brick on them? Pros/cons.
Question 2
The basement consists of a slab that is uneven, with ups and downs in different areas. The walls that have also been widened seem to consist of brick in some places and concrete with rather large stones in others. Besides the walls, there are cast/masonry walls forming a cross in the basement. Is this a stable construction? The non-load-bearing walls are about 4 decimeters, while the outer ones are maybe 7 decimeters.
Question 3
Several of the floors in the house, on all floors, are uneven. On the first floor, the floors slope towards the middle from the points where the load-bearing basement walls support beams, etc. What is the cause of this? Are the beams starting to give way? Or is it natural for this to happen over the years? I have considered placing standing beams under some of the beams I think are flexing. What could happen, could the floor theoretically collapse through to the floor below?
It should be added that the house is generally in good condition. We were planning to sell, so an inspection was done by Anticimex. It was a less in-depth inspection, but the inspector only noted that uneven floors are common in old houses.
Grateful for input.
I have inherited a house built in the 1930s. It has a basement and 3 floors above it. Residential building, 300 sqm.
The basement is about 100 sqm.
I understand that it is built with standing timber which is then plastered.
Question 1
In the 80s, the foundation was widened and a "thin brick" was added. This means the brick façade is only 1 cm outside the foundation. Wasn't it more common to mount heavy angle irons and brick on them? Pros/cons.
Question 2
The basement consists of a slab that is uneven, with ups and downs in different areas. The walls that have also been widened seem to consist of brick in some places and concrete with rather large stones in others. Besides the walls, there are cast/masonry walls forming a cross in the basement. Is this a stable construction? The non-load-bearing walls are about 4 decimeters, while the outer ones are maybe 7 decimeters.
Question 3
Several of the floors in the house, on all floors, are uneven. On the first floor, the floors slope towards the middle from the points where the load-bearing basement walls support beams, etc. What is the cause of this? Are the beams starting to give way? Or is it natural for this to happen over the years? I have considered placing standing beams under some of the beams I think are flexing. What could happen, could the floor theoretically collapse through to the floor below?
It should be added that the house is generally in good condition. We were planning to sell, so an inspection was done by Anticimex. It was a less in-depth inspection, but the inspector only noted that uneven floors are common in old houses.
Grateful for input.
You have a plank house with a frame of standing tongue-and-groove plank, probably 3 inches thick. On the inside, it is plastered. The plaster is on a reed mat, and there may be additional paneling behind it. If the base has been widened in a competent manner, I see no fault in it. The outer basement walls appear to consist of granite in concrete, which was not common in the 1930s. This suggests that the house is located in the countryside. The norm was reinforced concrete walls on footings. Whether there are footings under your foundation walls, I cannot say. The ground beneath the house is crucial for the construction's stability. Between the walls, thin unreinforced concrete slabs were typically poured.
Uneven floors are common in 1930s houses. Wood dimensions were used that were strong but not very rigid. Changes due to prolonged load were also not considered. There's probably no risk of the floors collapsing. The optimal way to reinforce the floors depends on the current layout.
Uneven floors are common in 1930s houses. Wood dimensions were used that were strong but not very rigid. Changes due to prolonged load were also not considered. There's probably no risk of the floors collapsing. The optimal way to reinforce the floors depends on the current layout.
Thank you for the thorough and comprehensive answer.
But plank versus timber are different things, right?
Or are both variants called plank?
But plank versus timber are different things, right?
Or are both variants called plank?
Plank is a variant of timber that is tongue-and-groove. Do you mean that the timber in the exterior walls is not tongue-and-groove?
The walls of the outer structure are made of vertical logs. Square logs. 12x12 around the entire house.
Then on the outside of that, it is plastered.
Later, however, a brick facade was added.
Then on the outside of that, it is plastered.
Later, however, a brick facade was added.
Member
· Västernorrland
· 11 695 posts
Are you sure about the 30s as the construction year then? Standing timber was otherwise common around 1900 but disappeared quite quickly for more modern ways of building.
I agree with the year of origin. It must be a much older house, considering both the walls and the foundation. 12x12 (cm I assume) is also an awkward dimension.
Built around 1930. 3 floors with a basement.
Located in an older "villa area" almost in the city center.
Yes, it seems to be standing timber in the parts that could be checked.
Located in an older "villa area" almost in the city center.
Yes, it seems to be standing timber in the parts that could be checked.
Opened some inner paneling in the staircase to the basement.
Found upright posts with TAGEL in between. The posts look very nice. They are about 12x12 cm and square.
Found upright posts with TAGEL in between. The posts look very nice. They are about 12x12 cm and square.
Member
· Västernorrland
· 11 695 posts
Standing timber, if we now refer to it that way, is constructed in the same manner as houses with horizontal timber. Common around 1900, but it was time-consuming since one preferably built with old dry wood that had already settled, or used tie rods to secure it. Time-consuming and complicated, as mentioned, and it didn't last long. Then came standing plank, which can have any dimensions but is usually planed around and tongue-and-grooved.
The standing timber/boards I found are rough-sawn. Not planed.
Member
· Västernorrland
· 11 695 posts
Yes, it can of course also be sawn. I was mostly thinking about the appearance of timber versus plank. Everyone knows what a house with horizontal timber looks like, for example. That's how it looked around 1900, but vertical then. Then came tongue and groove wood that is more uniform.
I am thinking more about the question of load-bearing.
Planks are hardly load-bearing in themselves, while standing timber or standing posts carry in a completely different way.
Planks are hardly load-bearing in themselves, while standing timber or standing posts carry in a completely different way.
Checked again and it's sawn timber, standing in 12x12 or 12x14. No tongue and groove at all.