I have plans to remodel the kitchen and the current layout is completely hopeless for making a functional kitchen.
The house is a 1.5-story with a basement, built in 1939.
Part of the original drawing is attached. Not everything is quite accurate; the wall between the two rooms has been removed and the closets between the kitchen and room have instead been expanded into a bathroom with double the area of the closets, area taken from the room.
I want to demolish the bathroom and completely open up between the kitchen and living room. This means I have to remove the wall towards the kitchen that has a dashed line over the door. I assume this wall is load-bearing.
What dimension of laminated beam might be needed? Why isn't there a corresponding load-bearing wall on the other side (no reinforcements are marked at least)?
The house is a 1.5-story with a basement, built in 1939.
Part of the original drawing is attached. Not everything is quite accurate; the wall between the two rooms has been removed and the closets between the kitchen and room have instead been expanded into a bathroom with double the area of the closets, area taken from the room.
I want to demolish the bathroom and completely open up between the kitchen and living room. This means I have to remove the wall towards the kitchen that has a dashed line over the door. I assume this wall is load-bearing.
What dimension of laminated beam might be needed? Why isn't there a corresponding load-bearing wall on the other side (no reinforcements are marked at least)?
Last edited:
On the other side, there's the wall that separates the room from the vestibule/stairwell and is probably load-bearing, as the beams towards the stairwell end there. Sure, it isn't as centrally located as the wall you want to remove, but it still reduces the unsupported span of the beams from almost 7 meters to just under 5 meters - quite significant nonetheless.injonil said:
I guess your wall is not load-bearing (in the sense that the roof would collapse if you removed it) but rather supportive, but you risk the attic floor sagging over time if you don't replace it correctly. So I think you should hire an engineer to get the right dimensioning and instructions on how the job should be done.
Thank you for the response!
I would like to better understand how the roof truss is constructed.
As mentioned, the beam's task must at least be to support the trusses.
I will take the drawings to a company that sells trusses, glulam, etc., and see what they say!
I would like to better understand how the roof truss is constructed.
As mentioned, the beam's task must at least be to support the trusses.
I will take the drawings to a company that sells trusses, glulam, etc., and see what they say!
The truss manufacturer was not particularly interested in helping me 
It's about the span between the chimney and the outer wall, just over 3m. It can hardly require particularly heavy dimensions to support the trusses and floor joists over this short length.
90x315 must surely be more than enough?
It's about the span between the chimney and the outer wall, just over 3m. It can hardly require particularly heavy dimensions to support the trusses and floor joists over this short length.
90x315 must surely be more than enough?
Looking at the facade drawing, it appears that the wall plane is significantly raised above the door/window height. If that's the case (say at least 50-60 cm higher than the ceiling on the top floor), I would assume (considering the house's age) that a Swedish truss is involved in the whole thing.
It is recognized by a brace that runs from the point where the support wall and floor meet and then goes diagonally up to the rafter where it lands on the outer wall and is joined with it (usually as a simple nailed lap joint between the rafter and the brace). This way, the floor is relieved from the pressure of the brace, and the diagonal brace also helps to 'lift off' some of the load on the floor.
If the house is not too wide (say under 7 meters externally), the floor can manage without a central wall beneath it with a Swedish truss. Thus, neither of the two walls found between the chimney and the gable would be load-bearing. But I wouldn’t bet heavily on it. It should be checked with a structural engineer on site.
During my years in the construction business, I have seen many instances of measures not intended to enhance the strength and stability of houses. A horror example I encountered in Eslöv many years ago. There, the homeowner simply sawed off the braces on a Swedish truss to set up closets in the cold attic and thus avoided jumping over them. It creaked considerably every time it was windy, and the homeowner was afraid the house would collapse. That's why my boss and I were called in. We quickly found the fault and told the homeowner, who was the one who had removed the braces. But there was no question of putting them back, and he couldn’t consider any other measure either. As a last question, we got the following: Will it collapse? The boss (Bertil Möller, BTA in Malmö) said laconically this: As long as it creaks, it holds. Furthermore, the wood doesn’t know our Swedish building codes and strength, so it just complains in this way. If you're lucky, the construction takes support where it can. Then it's just a matter of crossing your fingers We never heard anything more from the homeowner, so apparently, the house is still managing
Not too many years ago, I encountered another example. A 100-year-old barn with a free span of 10 meters with trusses spaced 6 meters apart and a 45-degree roof pitch. The truss parts made from solid 8" timber in full lengths with a triangular shape and a notched collar beam. If one were to submit such a construction for a building permit today, the permit granters would laugh their heads off. Theoretically, it wouldn’t hold even on paper. The conclusion is easy to draw. Timber holds significantly more than we think.
_____________________
Byggaren
It is recognized by a brace that runs from the point where the support wall and floor meet and then goes diagonally up to the rafter where it lands on the outer wall and is joined with it (usually as a simple nailed lap joint between the rafter and the brace). This way, the floor is relieved from the pressure of the brace, and the diagonal brace also helps to 'lift off' some of the load on the floor.
If the house is not too wide (say under 7 meters externally), the floor can manage without a central wall beneath it with a Swedish truss. Thus, neither of the two walls found between the chimney and the gable would be load-bearing. But I wouldn’t bet heavily on it. It should be checked with a structural engineer on site.
During my years in the construction business, I have seen many instances of measures not intended to enhance the strength and stability of houses. A horror example I encountered in Eslöv many years ago. There, the homeowner simply sawed off the braces on a Swedish truss to set up closets in the cold attic and thus avoided jumping over them. It creaked considerably every time it was windy, and the homeowner was afraid the house would collapse. That's why my boss and I were called in. We quickly found the fault and told the homeowner, who was the one who had removed the braces. But there was no question of putting them back, and he couldn’t consider any other measure either. As a last question, we got the following: Will it collapse? The boss (Bertil Möller, BTA in Malmö) said laconically this: As long as it creaks, it holds. Furthermore, the wood doesn’t know our Swedish building codes and strength, so it just complains in this way. If you're lucky, the construction takes support where it can. Then it's just a matter of crossing your fingers
We never heard anything more from the homeowner, so apparently, the house is still managing Not too many years ago, I encountered another example. A 100-year-old barn with a free span of 10 meters with trusses spaced 6 meters apart and a 45-degree roof pitch. The truss parts made from solid 8" timber in full lengths with a triangular shape and a notched collar beam. If one were to submit such a construction for a building permit today, the permit granters would laugh their heads off. Theoretically, it wouldn’t hold even on paper. The conclusion is easy to draw. Timber holds significantly more than we think.
_____________________
Byggaren
Thank you for your response, Byggaren!
The house is just under 6.84m wide and 8m long.
Attached is an image of the roof truss construction. Not exactly as you thought, but this variant is also considered a Swedish truss, right?
Does this change your guess? It would be very good to avoid the beam since it needs to be supported by the chimney, which I'm not really fond of both for constructional reasons and for fire safety.
The house is just under 6.84m wide and 8m long.
Attached is an image of the roof truss construction. Not exactly as you thought, but this variant is also considered a Swedish truss, right?
Does this change your guess? It would be very good to avoid the beam since it needs to be supported by the chimney, which I'm not really fond of both for constructional reasons and for fire safety.
No, I guessed pretty well based on my experience. It's a Swedish truss, but not quite executed correctly. The brace between the rafters and support should not be horizontal. It doesn't serve the same purpose then. No stability is created because it doesn't form a triangle with the beam, wall, and rafters. So if you want to be on the safe side, you can add such a diagonal brace and let the horizontal one remain. The problem will be securing it properly at the nodes so that the shear forces from the nails can be managed effectively. A through-bolt of 10-12 mm with toothed plates between the wood parts can be very/better useful.
P.S.
I also think I can see a follower under the support leg walls above the beams. Then I'm not quite as sure that it's a Swedish truss, in any case. You should have an engineer. on-site take a closer look at how that node looks, whether the beams can be considered hung on the follower or not.
__________________
Byggaren
P.S.
I also think I can see a follower under the support leg walls above the beams. Then I'm not quite as sure that it's a Swedish truss, in any case. You should have an engineer. on-site take a closer look at how that node looks, whether the beams can be considered hung on the follower or not.
__________________
Byggaren
Last edited by a moderator:
injonil said:
Yep! Exactly right.
______________
The builder.
