Started garage wobbles

[AndersS]

I looked up the terms because I didn't recognize the ones you're using.

The "hammarband" is what lies on top of the standing wall studs. The recessed beam that you so inventively call "hammarband" is actually called a bearer.

So, you're hardly a structural engineer.

Well, historically, recessed beams were used and not the ones placed on top referred to as "hammarband." You'll need to search again; that’s why I previously mentioned that it's both a generational and surely geographical difference in how it’s referred to.
In my family, the recessed beam is called "hammarband" in both old and new buildings. 😉
But right or wrong may not matter. In simpler structures, I only use recessed "hammarband."

 

[useless]

For once, I agree with Nissens. The purpose of the hammarband is to stabilize the wall so it does not bulge. Therefore, that board is mounted lying down.
If you cannot place the roof trusses directly over a standing stud, you supplement with a beam mounted on its edge. Usually placed under the hammarband and recessed into the standing studs.

The fact that some refer to both types of studs, or their combination, as hammarband does not make it a correct term.

 

[Spikrätaren]

If I may offer a tip, I highly recommend using recessed beams in virtually all walls that support roof trusses. It becomes much stiffer during the construction process. It ties the wall plate together at the joints. In other words, staggered joints on the wall plate and beam. Also, nail these together - about every 25cm - strong and good! It has happened more than once that one wants to change/add windows, doors or alter dimensions during construction. This is greatly simplified when building with a generously sized beam. You design it so that you can place a roof truss between two wall studs if needed (cc60cm). Moreover, the main purpose of the wall plate is not really to absorb the building's horizontal forces, it simply cannot handle that. There is a collaboration between roof trusses, floor structure, and ceiling. So if you have a longer garage without a ceiling, it's important to cross-brace under the roof trusses. Not from corner to corner but closer so that the anchoring points also come on the wall itself. Better to have one cross too many both when it comes to walls and roofs!

 

[AG A]

I checked the terms because I don’t recognize the ones you're using.

The top plate is what lies above the standing wall studs. The inset beam that you so creatively call the top plate is actually called a bearer.

So, you’re hardly a structural engineer.

I refer to Wikipedia.
You're simply wrong. A bearer is a much broader term. A top plate is the horizontal beams on the long sides of the building. The purpose of the top plate is to absorb the forces of the roof trusses and distribute them onto the wall studs. If a lying 45×145 isn’t considered strong enough, the top plate is reinforced. For example, by adding a "bearer" on edge. The lying beam and the "bearer" now together constitute the building's top plate. Top plates are normally NOT constructed for lateral forces. Roof beams/trusses take those forces.

 

[egge80]

Now I think we should all sing together "we shall overcome"

 

[useless]

The purpose of the hammarband is to absorb the forces of the roof trusses and distribute them onto the wall studs.

No.

 

[seniorkonsult]

But now it is indeed a proper hammarband in just the OP's garage. Having that, I don't think it matters much if there aren't posts directly under each roof truss. The weight is distributed anyway.
In the image above, there is none of that at all........

Whether an infällt väggband (support beam) is required depends on the span of the roof truss, if upright studs cannot be placed under each roof truss. Hammarband on the top of the wall band facilitates the placement of roof trusses. The whole question is now moot since the garage has been built! See #154

 

[FredrikR]

I looked up the terms because I don't recognize the ones you're using.

The hammarband is what lies on top of the standing wall studs. The recessed beam that you so creatively call a hammarband is actually called a bärlina.

So, you're hardly a structural engineer.

Did it say anything about posts where the knowledge was obtained?

 

[Nissens]

Was there anything about posts where the knowledge was obtained?

I have never claimed to be a construction engineer, and a construction engineer who doesn't know the difference between a load beam and a wall plate is likely extremely unique.

That an amateur calls vertical studs posts is something that happens, and many understand that in this context, you mean vertical studs, but not everyone.

When you didn't understand what I meant, I changed the term.

The fact is still that the wall plate doesn't support the roof trusses; it's the load beam that does in this case. The most common is to have vertical studs that support the roof trusses; I personally think it feels like a better solution because the bearing surface under the roof truss becomes significantly larger. Additionally, there should be a straightening moment in the frame that you don't get with a recessed load beam. The load beam is not centered in the stud.

 

[bossespecial]

If the truss is centered over the wall stud, no moment arises, so calling this a "corrective moment" is completely wrong 🤓😜

 

[FredrikR]

I have never claimed to be a structural engineer, and a structural engineer who doesn't know the difference between a bearer and a hammarband is likely extremely unique.

When an amateur calls vertical studs "stolpar," it's something that happens, and many understand that it means vertical studs in this context, though not everyone.

When you didn't understand what I meant, I changed the terminology.

The fact remains that the hammarband does not support the trusses; it's the bearer that does in this case. The most common is to have vertical studs supporting the trusses, which I personally feel is a better solution as the bearing area beneath the truss becomes significantly larger. Additionally, it should create a straightening moment in the frame that you don't get with a recessed bearer. The bearer isn't centered in the stud.

It seems in some cases important to you that the correct words are used, but mostly only when others write?

 

[FredrikR]

The most common is to have standing studs that support the rafters; personally, I think it feels like a better solution since the load-bearing area under the rafter becomes significantly larger. Additionally, there should be a straightening moment in the frame that you don't get with a recessed beam. The beam isn't centered in the stud.

You also write that it feels better...

Do you think the wall stud only supports with the part the beam rests on, which is 45mm, or do you think the entire stud takes the load?

 

[Nissens]

You also write that it feels better...

Do you think the wall rule only supports with the part the support beam rests on, which is 45mm, or do you think the entire rule takes the load?

Of course, the force is distributed in the rule, but the weakest point is where the roof truss and support beam meet, the surface is 45x45 mm. And the top plate is squeezed in between as well, it's best to add that.

I'm not saying the point is weak, but it would be interesting to know how many kN it is okay to load such a small wooden surface with. You who are an expert in the area might be able to enlighten about that, preferably with a source if there is one. 😊

 

[seniorkonsult]

Of course, the force is distributed in the beam, but the weakest point is where the rafter and the load-bearing beam meet, that surface is 45x45 mm. And the wall plate is clamped in between, it's probably best to add.

Not saying that point is weak, but it would be interesting to know how many kN it is okay to load such a small wood surface with. You who are an expert in the field might be able to enlighten us about it, preferably with a source if available. 😊

Look at "svenskt trä", I think it's about 60 kp/cm2 for compression on ordinary, other timber, if I remember correctly.

 

[Nissens]

Look at "svenskt trä", I believe it's about 60 kp/cm2 for compression on regular, other timber, if I remember correctly.

kp?