I would like some help as we are about to completely renovate a villa. We are considering tearing down part of the intermediate floor above the living room to achieve full ceiling height, which would be about 4.5m deep. The question is whether this is possible. We want to remove the full width, from outer wall to outer wall, but I'm unsure whether the roof trusses should be supported in that case. See the attached drawing. Is it impossible or is there a way to do it? Would a pillar that goes all the way up and supports through it help?
Grateful for a response so we know whether to completely discard the idea or if it can be done
The lower beam in the truss has the task (in addition to serving as the floor for the attic) of holding the outer walls together. If you want an open space up to the ridge, you need to have a different construction with a ridge beam.
... and in theory, a pillar up to the roof ridge is enough!
In practice, however, a bit more tinkering is required.
Staffan
In practice, however, a bit more tinkering is required.
Staffan
But as I said, everything can be done. In that case, you should let a structural engineer calculate the construction.
But in principle, it's about setting up two posts from the foundation to the ridge. Placing a beam on the posts. And then reinforcing the rafters' angled beams.
It's not a major undertaking.
But in principle, it's about setting up two posts from the foundation to the ridge. Placing a beam on the posts. And then reinforcing the rafters' angled beams.
It's not a major undertaking.
If the intention is to open up the roof structure to the ridge, it is a technically quite simple measure that requires the collar ties in the relevant section to be replaced with steel tension rods. If the intention really is to open up the structure between the ground floor and the upper floor, the drawing documentation is not sufficient to assess suitable measures. A section through all floors and also a floor plan is needed. Spontaneously, I would say that this is the wrong house for something similar. It will likely entail significant capital destruction. However, the measure does not require a ridge beam.
Hi!J justusandersson said:
I'm wondering what you mean when you say it's "significant capital destruction"? In what way is it capital destruction to open up to the ridge? Because it removes living space on the upper floor, because it's costly, or some other reason?
It's not criticism, just a curious question
That's not what I meant. Capital destruction referred to opening up the beams between the ground floor and the upper floor, not opening up to the ridge. The latter I think is completely OK.
I probably expressed myself unclearly. I understood that you meant opening up from the lower floor to the upper floor and was then curious about what with that action would be a waste of capital. Lost living space, costly renovations, or something else?
I wouldn't do it myself since I would value living space more than double ceiling height in general, but if one wants a large volume in a living room and doesn't need the upper floor's rooms, then maybe it could be conceivable.
I wouldn't do it myself since I would value living space more than double ceiling height in general, but if one wants a large volume in a living room and doesn't need the upper floor's rooms, then maybe it could be conceivable.
I was considering not only the lost living space but also some technical and aesthetic aspects. The elegant design of the outer roof, which is spectacular for the late 1960s, has a special eaves solution that will require many workarounds to eliminate. The intermediate floor, which is set at c/c 400 mm and is also supported by an interior wall, is another example. Opening between the ground floor and the upper floor could work wonderfully, but not in this house.
Aha! I hadn't seen/thought about the eaves. Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. It's always fun to hear others' perspectives and learn from those who know more.