Load-bearing walls

[bjorn55]

First, I don't have the opportunity to see the house myself; I have received some pictures via email. The house is from the late 30s, early 40s. Load-bearing wall cross by the chimney structure from the basement up to the upper floor. This results in 4 rooms on each floor, but non-load-bearing walls divide into more rooms.

Mostly coincides, but the ground floor's center wall (load-bearing) has been "moved" about 60-70 cm sideways. The plank wall replaced with a stud wall with chipboard on. Then someone has additionally played with a chainsaw in this wall that replaced the original.

What I can't understand is how the house is still standing upright without visible damage.

Can anyone explain what I'm missing here? There isn't the slightest trace of any relief. Neither in the attic nor in the walls. However, there are cracks in the basement wall (directly under the largest intervention) that don't look very healthy.

Additionally, a similar change on the upper floor with a crossing wall, but it's also load-bearing. The roof has taken on a negligible China design.

 

[sigpl]

It's difficult to comment without a floor plan drawing. One can differentiate between load-bearing and supporting structures. Most likely, the roof trusses are self-supporting, meaning without the need for support from any interior wall and resting solely on the exterior walls. Hjärtväggar don't need to be load-bearing in the sense that they should bear the weight of overlying walls, but only support the floor slab to avoid excessive deflection and wobbliness. Interior walls do not necessarily need to be placed exactly on the hjärtvägg without being moved sideways and supported by the floor slab. Without large dimensions, these do not weigh terribly much, no more than a point load from a heavy person. In houses built in the 1930s-1940s, the lumber dimensions were often generously sized (wood was cheaper at that time).