Help! The wall plate is loose, will the roof collapse???

[Matti_75]

Found this, but how accurate it is I don't know.

[image]

The 2 pieces of advice I have received so far are:
1. Place an additional rule underneath along all the joints. Lift (there is about a 5cm dip in the middle) and then cross-brace above the rules in the wall.
2. Place studs cc 60 throughout the wall under the roof trusses/beams. But, they are not in log so there will be studs everywhere.

There you see the function of that rule, it should only hold the panel at the top.

 

[Tinker_cat]

There you see the function of that rule, it's only supposed to hold the panel at the top.

That was what we thought, but then the roof started to sag. But maybe it's because the panel held the chair?

 

[Matti_75]

Yes, the panel was a load-bearing part of the wall.

 

[din granne]

Take the opportunity to add a supporting structure while you're there anyway, it's going to be good, but be careful and make sure to prop it up.

The entire wall is a sandwich construction, meaning several thin layers provide strength and stability. Very common in, for example, the automotive industry. I didn't think it was used in regular house walls. Crazy.

 

[Henningelvis]

That's what we thought, but then the roof started to sag. But maybe it's because the panel held the beam?

I guess based on what you see in the pictures that the modules were first placed there, then the rafters were laid, then paneled to increase stability, and finally the roof covering was laid on. So the panel doesn't hold the rafter, but helps support the roof's weight. When you remove the panel, the roof sags, but the most important supporting part is still the modules. I think you should be able to replace the panel with longitudinal battens, which you might need to set closer together than you had planned.

 

[Oldboy]

I interpret the roof truss drawing as essentially being Mansard roof trusses, and that the so-called "hammarbandet" "only" has the task of supporting the roof truss arms, i.e., the lower part of the roof.

It seems completely incredible to me if it has only been supported by the outer panel. The architect/engineer/designer who uses a wear part (the facade/wooden panel) as a supporting element must be considered completely incompetent for house construction. If a roof lowering has really occurred here, after the panel has been removed, it seems to be that bad.

The first solution that pops up is to lift what has sunk and set up vertical 45x70, cc 60 cm, which is firmly attached to the beam and all other studs and further up to the roof arms' "hammarband".

 

[Tinker_cat]

Take the opportunity to install a load-bearing structure while you're at it, it will turn out well but be careful to provide support.

The entire wall is a sandwich construction, meaning that several thin layers provide strength and stability. Very common in, for example, the automotive industry; I didn't think it existed in ordinary house walls. Crazy.

Absolutely, that's the plan. You have to be able to replace the wood panel without the house collapsing.
We're working on a plan now for how this should be accomplished.

 

[Tinker_cat]

I'm guessing from what one sees in the pictures that they first placed the modules, then added the trusses, then paneled to increase stability and thereafter added the roofing. The panel does not hold the truss but helps support the weight of the roof. When you remove the panel, the roof sags, but the most important supporting part is still the modules.
I think you should be able to replace the panel with longitudinal studs that you might need to set closer than you intended.

That's how I interpret the construction as well. So it will probably have to be according to the tip to place studs throughout the wall with cc 60, it will be shorter in some places but that's fine as long as it holds.

 

[Tinker_cat]

I interpret the truss drawing as it is essentially Mansard trusses, and that the so-called "hammarbandet" "only" has the task of supporting the truss tails, i.e., the lower part of the roof.

It seems absolutely unbelievable to me if it has only been supported by the outer panel. The architect/engineer/designer who uses a wear-and-tear element (the facade/wood panel) as a load-bearing element must be considered completely incompetent for house construction. If roof sinking has indeed occurred here, after the panel has been removed, then it seems to be that bad.

The first solution that comes to mind is to lift up what has sunk and put in upright 45x70, spaced at 60 cm, firmly attached to the sill and all other studs and further up to the truss tails' "hammarband".

Exactly, it seems like it's not a hammarband after all, but a fastening rule for the panel. And that the panel itself has had the load-bearing function.

Do you then mean to place them (45x70) on top of existing studs?
Since there are horizontal studs across the whole house, we can't put in full studs from the roof to the sill without either cutting those that are "in the way" or putting in a lot of small pieces of 45x70 on top of each other in each compartment.

 

[pacman42]

I really do not envy you this situation and the work you have ahead, but...
...you will be extremely satisfied with yourself when you are done! Look towards the goal, not the road!

 

[Henningelvis]

Exactly, it seems that it is not a wall plate after all, but a fastening rule for the panel. And that it is the panel that has had the load-bearing function.

Do you mean to place them (45x70) on top of existing studs?
Since there are horizontal studs across the whole house, we can't put in full-length studs from roof to sill without either cutting those that are "in the way" or putting in a lot of small pieces of 45x70 on top of each other in each section.

You must under no circumstances cut any parts in the modules as seen in your pictures. But weren't you planning to add insulation? Then I would place 45x70 in full length on the outside of the existing structure and move the panel out.

 

[EddieHansson]

Have only removed the panel. It's an old modular house, so the walls are in sections.

It was similar in our house. The modules are self-supporting and the "hammarbandet" (beam) lies on top of them. When we redid the insulation, we replaced the modules with a proper stud frame with vertical studs under each roof truss. The modules needed both chipboard on the inside and the panel on the outside to be fully load-bearing.

Note: The base frame must be able to take the point load. We reinforced it for this reason.

 

[Et1975]

Absolutely, that's the plan. You have to be able to replace the wood paneling without the house collapsing.
We're working on a plan for how to achieve that now.

But if instead of doing as you did, tearing away all the paneling on the entire wall, you could imagine replacing small sections at a time..?

This wall is what it is, but if you continue on the other walls, that should be a less risky method…

 

[Tinker_cat]

I really don't envy you this situation and the work you have ahead of you, but...
...you will be extremely satisfied with yourself when you're finished! Look towards the goal, not at the path!

Thanks! I can say that the anxiety has been overwhelming, will never again "just replace the panel"

 

[Tinker_cat]

Under no circumstances should you cut any parts of the modules as seen in your pictures. But you were planning to add insulation? Then I would place 45x70 in full length on the outside of the existing construction and move the panel out.

No, of course not, that's what I'm saying that we can't do that. So I understood you correctly, that you mean on the outside and not inside the existing construction.