Why did the ceiling sink, took down interior wall

[Henrik Lindberg]

Maybe this post will make one think so? [link]

Spent a lot of time in Gullringen during my teenage years in the 1970s when the house factory was in full swing. What was said was that the manufacturer Krister Ansgarius was frugal and wanted the smallest possible size for the studs, and the factory used lightweight studs early on.

Yes, small house manufacturers generally don't over-dimension, and serial production means that the design cost can be spread over more frames with the same design. A house built once with that exact design quickly becomes more expensive in labor costs than saving in material through fine optimization, and in practice, conditions often change during construction, making it prudent for problem-solving to have a bit of extra capacity.

It's really a balancing act, and the fact that not all elements are over-dimensioned is a sign of quality in itself. In the best of worlds, you have a good object-specific requirement that is optimized to be met with as little material usage as possible.

 

[dicliff]

We who went to high school in the 80s know this, yes!
I've seen some mistakes where, thinking they're doing it right, it goes wrong..
I like your approach 👍

Haha, I attended a high school class in 1984 where the whole class, except for me, believed that when calculating the heat coefficient of a refrigerator, they thought a refrigerator has a left side, a right side, a top, a bottom, and a front side but no back side! Because there's a wall there!
I'd like to see one of them install a refrigerator without a back side.
(Of course, this has nothing to do with this problem, but it just shows how wrong one could think in the '80s. And probably not just in the '80s.😆)

 

[Gullringen]

@Gullringen which snow zone are you in? And can you measure the dimension of the upper and lower frame? (if you don't have it in a drawing)

Snow zone 2.5. Upper frame 165x45, lower frame 140x45.

There's a box in the drawings that says snow load 150kg/sqm.

 

[grovspacklarn]

Has the house collapsed yet? Where is TS - we demand answers.

Best regards

 

[Gullringen]

Have been holding up the roof for a week now, had a hard time responding during that 😅

 

[13th Marine]

Snow zone 2.5. Upper arm 165x45, lower arm 140x45.

There is a box in the drawings that says snow load 150kg/sqm.

Matches the tables uploaded under the condition that the wood maintains a c24 rating.
The question is whether it can be seen on the roof trusses.

However, a snow load of 150kg sounds more like snow zone 1.5.

 

[Gullringen]

Consistent with the tables that have been uploaded, provided that the timber meets the C24 grading.
The question is if it is possible to see on the rafters.

A snow load of 150kg sounds more like snow zone 1.5.

Yes, it feels like it was calculated a bit too low at that time. There will be a beam in the roof because it feels like even though they are free-standing rafters, I want to support it.

 

[Huddingebo]

Yes, it feels like it was calculated a bit too low at that time. There will be a beam in the ceiling as it feels like, even though they are free-spanning trusses, I want to support it.

Or maybe they simply calculated that the building as a whole would function just fine together with the somewhat flimsy interior walls.
A beam fixes the vertical load, but it doesn't do much for wind load effects. So you lose the wall's stabilizing effect regardless.
But perhaps a bit more creaking in autumn storms might be tolerable.