In our house from 1909, we wish to take down the walls to the kattvindar to create more floor space in one of the rooms upstairs. In the other room, previous owners have already taken down the kattvind wall that was there without leaving any standing stud. See the attached drawing where the green wall has been removed and the red walls are desired to be removed. Estimably, the green wall was demolished around 1980 or even earlier.
As seen in the pictures, the kattvindar consist of standing planks in quite a coarse dimension. These planks are skew-nailed together and caulked with old fabrics in the gaps between. From what I can see and feel, the plank wall is anchored to the roof trusses in only one place, see picture where arrows indicate the screw heads. The wall feels stable due to the coarse timber, but if you leverage with a crowbar at the top, it can be shifted, except just where it is anchored to the truss, of course.
Based on what the expertise here on the forum sees in the pictures, do you think the wall is load-bearing?
The walls of the cat room are load-bearing and stabilizing for the trusses and cannot be removed just like that. On the side where the staircase is, there was no room for a kattvind. Instead, there is a small cross wall on the drawing. Trusses for gambrel roofs are quite rigid, which explains why the removed kattvind wall has not caused any visible damage. In the long term, the roof may deform. It is possible to replace the walls with beams and columns, but it can be somewhat complicated and might not be perceived as an improvement. You need to seek help from someone knowledgeable in building construction, and a carpenter alone is not sufficient.
Thank you, Justus, for your response. It's hard to argue against your reasoning. One way or another, the walls need to go, although it may be necessary to replace the wall with another solution. Therefore, I have continued to tear out the Kattvinden's insulation from the 80s to better see the wall's construction.
The wall is attached to a tongue and groove board that is, in turn, fastened to the rafters. If one were keen on having the wall relieve the rafters, then it should at least have been directly fastened to the rafters with more than a single nail as it is today. Even better would have been to frame the wall with posts and cover it with horizontal tongue and groove boards, as done with the load-bearing walls on the lower floor. Why hasn't this been done if the intention was for the wall to be load-bearing?
When I demolished it, I also discovered that they had cut the rafter at the end of the dormer, which is somewhat of a mystery. Couldn't it have been left when the dormer was built?
The construction at the eaves looks like this if it adds anything:
It's difficult to provide simple explanations for the issues with broken roofs. When the load from the upper part of the truss cannot be transmitted vertically with the help of the support leg, the steep (≈70°) part of the high leg is instead loaded, while at the same time a force arises that wants to displace the construction sideways. The appearance in your case is due to a lack of knowledge from those who have been there and remodeled. Often, the consequences do not become apparent until after a long time. It's challenging to advise you on what to do from a distance. The best option is to have someone knowledgeable in structural statics examine the roof on-site. A carpenter is usually not sufficient.
Hi, curious about how you progressed with the project? I'm actually considering the same ideas and your sketch fits well with my house. Looking forward to hearing from you.
