On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 20:25:34 GMT, "BigWallop"
wrote:

Now it's got me worried too. The joists in this old (100+ years) are all
over the place. The builder has taken the shortest route between supporting
walls in most cases, so you can imagine, with at least eight internal
supporting structures, that none of the rooms have joists that run in same
direction.

Yes. Very worrying to find out that floor joists should run parallel with
the roofing rafters. :-))

Oh no, I just went and checked, ours are fine, but we're in a terrace,
but I can't really easily check all our neighbours to see if they are
ok too, I'm thinking if they were wrong then they could fall in on us
from either side!

Concerned, Bucks.

Take Care,
Gnube
{too thick for linux}

Michael Mcneil wrote:

The prick just wants to write to the group never mind what is said. If
he wanted to know anything about such a specialised subject he would
have got hold of some books on it by now.

I am sure I speak for many in this group when I say that I greatly
welcome the ongoing advice and input that has been provided by Grunff
over the years. He has posted many consistently well though out and
polite messages to this group, always ready to help without attempting
puff his own ego at the expense of others - an ability that some people
could do well to learn from.

You seem to have contributed little of value to this thread while
demonstrating a lack of ability to grasp even basic concepts. Why for
example do you find it so difficult to understand the value of eliciting
the experiences of others, who may have experienced similar situations
themselves, is something of great value that you cannot do from simply
"reading a book" or asking a "professional"?



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

BigWallop wrote:

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 7 Oct 2003 06:28:16 UTC, "Michael Mcneil"
wrote:


Another question he might ask his expert is why floor joists are always
laid parallel to the rafters.

Hmmmm.our house is due to fall down then. Half of the house has joists
going one way, and in the rest of the house they're at right angles.
Obviously a design fault 100 years ago when it was built...


--
Bob Eager



Now it's got me worried too. The joists in this old (100+ years) are all
over the place. The builder has taken the shortest route between supporting
walls in most cases, so you can imagine, with at least eight internal
supporting structures, that none of the rooms have joists that run in same
direction.

Yes. Very worrying to find out that floor joists should run parallel with
the roofing rafters. :-))




Particulraly if you have a pitched roof, I'd say :-)

John Rumm wrote:

Michael Mcneil wrote:

The prick just wants to write to the group never mind what is said. If
he wanted to know anything about such a specialised subject he would
have got hold of some books on it by now.


I am sure I speak for many in this group when I say that I greatly
welcome the ongoing advice and input that has been provided by Grunff
over the years. He has posted many consistently well though out and
polite messages to this group, always ready to help without attempting
puff his own ego at the expense of others - an ability that some people
could do well to learn from.

You seem to have contributed little of value to this thread while
demonstrating a lack of ability to grasp even basic concepts. Why for
example do you find it so difficult to understand the value of eliciting
the experiences of others, who may have experienced similar situations
themselves, is something of great value that you cannot do from simply
"reading a book" or asking a "professional"?




Don't feed the troll, unless you enjoy the mess.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Don't feed the troll, unless you enjoy the mess.

Couldn't decide if he was a troll or just plain obnoxious...

Either way you are probably right!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 09:59:25 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Particulraly if you have a pitched roof, I'd say :-)

Oh no, don't start with that, we got one of those too now - used to be
flat though, so maybe I don't need to worry over that as well?!

Wonder which I need most, a weather man or a lawyer?

Take Care,
Gnube
{too thick for linux}

Peter Ashby wrote in message ...
In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:
In article ,
fred wrote:

Once you is a profeshunul you realise how many other profeshunulz are
very, er, average . . . . .

Just as many cowboys in the professions as there are in the trades . . .

But then in both cases you come upon the real gems (if you're lucky).

Yup. I'm all in favour of using a pro for any job if needed, but blanket
statements like Mcneil's bring out the worst in me. Especially since
Grunff had already asked for advice on finding a good pro.

yes, and is very sensibly trying to put himself in a position where a
cowboy is less able to pull the wool over his eyes. Information is power.


Absolutely. I find if I understand the job I can often get it done
a) at a third the price
b) and know its all good.
c) and play with the design options to make maxiumum use of however
the thing is laid out/constructed/etc.
and d) sometimes do things the pros couldn't.

Knowledge is power in every area of life - yes, that too.


Regards, NT

fred wrote in message ...
In article , Dave Plowman
writes
Yup. I'm all in favour of using a pro for any job if needed, but blanket
statements like Mcneil's bring out the worst in me. Especially since
Grunff had already asked for advice on finding a good pro.
Don't feed the Tro . . . . .
;-)

MM... IMM... any connection do we think?

David wrote:

MM... IMM... any connection do we think?

Nah I don't think so, Mcneil makes IMM look extremely
knowledgeable and polite, a bloody good bloke...

--
Grunff

In article lgate.org,
"Michael Mcneil" writes:

The prick just wants to write to the group never mind what is said. If
he wanted to know anything about such a specialised subject he would
have got hold of some books on it by now.

I seem to remember making a comment about thinking before posting
before thinking some time back. Nobody heeded it, of course. Way
back when, one Mr. Marks suggested a period of some minutes
sitting on one's hands before posting would be a grand idea. In
the last year the signal to noise (which has become noise to
signal) ratio has worsened to the extent that the newsgroup is in
serious danger of becoming unusable. Unfortunately there are
people on this newsgroup who, having nothing to say, say it.
This, of course, dilutes any vestiges of credibility they may
have, and the astute subscribers to the newsgroup already know
that anyone who contributes more than half-a-dozen articles a day
is a wittering idiot. Quality rather than quantity, please.
Darryl Huff's "how to lie with statistics" is rather less than
150 pages long, but it is one of the best books I have ever read.
It may be coming up to its 50th birthday, but by reading it you
will learn more in a morning than you ever did in a year.

steps off soapbox

John Schmitt


--
If you have nothing to say, or rather, something extremely stupid
and obvious, say it, but in a 'plonking' tone of voice - i.e.
roundly, but hollowly and dogmatically. - Stephen Potter

"David" wrote in message
om...
fred wrote in message ...
In article , Dave Plowman
writes
Yup. I'm all in favour of using a pro for any job if needed, but
blanket
statements like Mcneil's bring out the worst in me. Especially since
Grunff had already asked for advice on finding a good pro.
Don't feed the Tro . . . . .
;-)

MM... IMM... any connection do we think?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003

"David" wrote in message
om...
fred wrote in message ...
In article , Dave Plowman
writes
Yup. I'm all in favour of using a pro for any job if needed, but
blanket
statements like Mcneil's bring out the worst in me. Especially since
Grunff had already asked for advice on finding a good pro.
Don't feed the Tro . . . . .
;-)

MM... IMM... any connection do we think?

Do you see me in dark corners as well?


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003

IMM wrote:

"David" wrote in message
om...

fred wrote in message ...

In article , Dave Plowman
writes

Yup. I'm all in favour of using a pro for any job if needed, but

blanket

statements like Mcneil's bring out the worst in me. Especially since
Grunff had already asked for advice on finding a good pro.

Don't feed the Tro . . . . .
;-)

MM... IMM... any connection do we think?


Do you see me in dark corners as well?




Only in my worst nightmares.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"David" wrote in message
om...

fred wrote in message ...

In article , Dave Plowman
writes

Yup. I'm all in favour of using a pro for any job if needed, but

blanket

statements like Mcneil's bring out the worst in me. Especially since
Grunff had already asked for advice on finding a good pro.

Don't feed the Tro . . . . .
;-)

MM... IMM... any connection do we think?


Do you see me in dark corners as well?

Only in my worst nightmares.

I am really happy to know I frighten the hell out of you. You have made my
day.


---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003

IMM wrote:


Do you see me in dark corners as well?


Only in my worst nightmares.


I am really happy to know I frighten the hell out of you. You have made my
day.




Its not so much fear, as an undending vista of featureless grey.

The sort of colors they paint un snotty unis.

You know, sunday afternoon, its raining, you have read all the books 10
times, heard all the albums 100 times, seen all the DVDS and you turn on
the TV and get 'songs of praise'.

And you realise what Hell really means. Being condemned to listen to
your turgid opinions for eternity...





---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:


Do you see me in dark corners as well?


Only in my worst nightmares.


I am really happy to know I frighten the hell out of you. You have made
my
day.

Its not so much fear, as an undending vista of featureless grey.

The sort of colors they paint un snotty unis.

You know, sunday afternoon, its raining, you have read all the books 10
times, heard all the albums 100 times, seen all the DVDS and you turn on
the TV and get 'songs of praise'.

And you realise what Hell really means. Being condemned to listen to
your turgid opinions for eternity...

The problem with you is that you think the snotty uni educated you, and
nothing else will. That is sad. You must read all my posts 4 times each.
Google and
read them all again - 4 times each. This is for your own good.





---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 07/10/2003

IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


Do you see me in dark corners as well?


Only in my worst nightmares.


I am really happy to know I frighten the hell out of you. You have made

my

day.


Its not so much fear, as an undending vista of featureless grey.

The sort of colors they paint un snotty unis.

You know, sunday afternoon, its raining, you have read all the books 10
times, heard all the albums 100 times, seen all the DVDS and you turn on
the TV and get 'songs of praise'.

And you realise what Hell really means. Being condemned to listen to
your turgid opinions for eternity...


The problem with you is that you think the snotty uni educated you,


No, but it helped me learn how to educate myself, and think critically,
nit take it all on trust.
Life then educated me to the realisation that neraly everyone who writes
something does it for a reason. Usually profit, very occasionally altruism.



and
nothing else will. That is sad. You must read all my posts 4 times each.
Google and
read them all again - 4 times each. This is for your own good.


Fortunately I find I have been imbued with something approximating free
will. Masochism has its appeal, but senseless masochism does not.







---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 07/10/2003

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


Do you see me in dark corners as well?


Only in my worst nightmares.


I am really happy to know I frighten the hell out of you. You have
made

my

day.


Its not so much fear, as an undending vista of featureless grey.

The sort of colors they paint un snotty unis.

You know, sunday afternoon, its raining, you have read all the books 10
times, heard all the albums 100 times, seen all the DVDS and you turn on
the TV and get 'songs of praise'.

And you realise what Hell really means. Being condemned to listen to
your turgid opinions for eternity...


The problem with you is that you think the snotty uni educated you,

No,

Corect!

but it helped me learn how to educate myself,
and think critically, nit take it all on trust.

It never.

Life then educated me to the realisation
that neraly everyone who writes
something does it for a reason. Usually profit,
very occasionally altruism.

Gasp!




---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.524 / Virus Database: 321 - Release Date: 06/10/2003

In message ,
PoP wrote:

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 23:07:38 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Greatest deflection is aout 30mm, over 70 years. The joists are
still nicely in their holes, that was one of the first things I
checked.

The leaning tower of Pisa has been moving gradually off centre for
several hundred years. It was only recently that they figured that if
they didn't do something it was going to come down sharpish.

I wouldn't depend on the argument "well it has only moved so much in
so many years". The straw that broke the camels back and all that.

PoP


Can't help the shameless plug, but if you want to see some *real*
structural problems, take a look at Caerphilly Castle:

http://www.castlewales.com/caerphil.html

Particularly the first couple of pictures (the leaning tower is about 10
degrees) and the North dam wall. Both are suspected to be due to
subsidence when the moats were drained when the castle fell into disuse.
Neither has moved for some 300 years. The leaning tower is surveyed
every 6 months just to make sure!

It's a shameless plug because Caerphilly is my home town and I'm working
at the castle at the moment :-) I have absolutely no connection to
castlewales.com by the way, other than applauding it.

Hwyl!

M.

--
Martin Angove: http://www.tridwr.demon.co.uk/
Don't fight technology, live with it: http://www.livtech.co.uk/
.... I'm not a complete idiot ÄÄ several parts are missing.

In message , Grunff
writes
TBH, I'm not terribly worried about the wall collapsing, because [a]
It's very unlikely to do so, given that it's stood this long, and is
supported by a great big stone porch on the outside, and [b] Even if it
did, it really wouldn't be the end of the world, and would give us a
good reason to rebuild the house.

How big are the cracks altogether? (At their widest)
When was the porch built?
Is the floor inside the cottage look like it has raised up very
slightly?

What could be happening is that the porch is 'rotating'; it's weight
could be pressing down on the earth outside the wall and heaving it up
inside the wall if you know what I mean. This would result in the
external wall's 'foot' moving off the vertical leading to an exaggerated
movement further up. Any bits of debris falling down vertically along
the edge of the partitions would keep wedging it out also. The porch
would tend to sink less where it is attached to the main wall because of
friction between it's (the porch) wall and the main house wall; this
shows as a lack of cracks between the porch and the main wall.
The roof will tend to hold back the top of the main wall so it 'bows' as
you have described.
If the house is on a slope and the porch is on the down hill side then
this is very likely as most old houses on slopes had an element of 'cut
and fill'; back wall built on solid ground and the front wall built on
spoil excavated from the back.


I'm *not* an engineer so don't take this as 'proper' advice; Insurance
company's and mortgage company's tend to like ppl with bits of paper to
write it all on other bits of paper.


If the movement had taken years to open to a couple of millimeters, then it
is not as urgent, but as you say your problem is happening over a shorter
period of time, then it might just be safer to get it looked at.

It's been on the move since at least the 60s, because we found some
1960s newspapers stuffed into one of the bigger cracks.

May well be that the porch is still 'settling in'
Probably best to shell out a couple of hundred quid to any old chartered
struc eng with lots of PI

--
mark

mark wrote:

How big are the cracks altogether? (At their widest)

The original cracks have long been filled - but would be around
20-25mm. The new cracks (about 2 years in the making) are about
1-2mm.


When was the porch built?

AFAIK at the same time as the house, ~1930.


Is the floor inside the cottage look like it has raised up very slightly?

The downstairs has two back rooms (the area of interest). One of
them has a wooden floor. The other has a concrete floor, which
had a big crack righ acoss it, like it had dropped about 30mm at
one end.


What could be happening is that the porch is 'rotating'; it's weight
could be pressing down on the earth outside the wall and heaving it up
inside the wall if you know what I mean. This would result in the
external wall's 'foot' moving off the vertical leading to an exaggerated
movement further up. Any bits of debris falling down vertically along
the edge of the partitions would keep wedging it out also. The porch
would tend to sink less where it is attached to the main wall because of
friction between it's (the porch) wall and the main house wall; this
shows as a lack of cracks between the porch and the main wall.
The roof will tend to hold back the top of the main wall so it 'bows' as
you have described.

You may be onto something here. The porch floor is decidedly
unlevel (slopes away from the house). But having said that, the
porch walls aren't enough off vertical to match the floor.


If the house is on a slope and the porch is on the down hill side then
this is very likely as most old houses on slopes had an element of 'cut
and fill'; back wall built on solid ground and the front wall built on
spoil excavated from the back.

Bingo - on a slope, with the porch on the downhill side.


I'm *not* an engineer so don't take this as 'proper' advice; Insurance
company's and mortgage company's tend to like ppl with bits of paper to
write it all on other bits of paper.

Noted - but if the problem is indeed as you diagnose, what
solution would you suggest? Underpin the back wall + porch?


May well be that the porch is still 'settling in'
Probably best to shell out a couple of hundred quid to any old chartered
struc eng with lots of PI

He'll be here on Tuesday :-). I'll let you know what he says.

Thanks for your thoughts.

--
Grunff

mark wrote:

How big are the cracks altogether? (At their widest)

The original cracks have long been filled - but would be around
20-25mm. The new cracks (about 2 years in the making) are about
1-2mm.


When was the porch built?

AFAIK at the same time as the house, ~1930.


Is the floor inside the cottage look like it has raised up
very slightly?

The downstairs has two back rooms (the area of interest). One of
them has a wooden floor. The other has a concrete floor, which
had a big crack righ acoss it, like it had dropped about 30mm at
one end.


What could be happening is that the porch is 'rotating'; it's
weight
could be pressing down on the earth outside the wall and
heaving it up
inside the wall if you know what I mean. This would result in
the
external wall's 'foot' moving off the vertical leading to an
exaggerated
movement further up. Any bits of debris falling down
vertically along
the edge of the partitions would keep wedging it out also.
The porch
would tend to sink less where it is attached to the main wall
because of
friction between it's (the porch) wall and the main house
wall; this
shows as a lack of cracks between the porch and the main wall.
The roof will tend to hold back the top of the main wall so
it 'bows' as
you have described.

You may be onto something here. The porch floor is decidedly
unlevel (slopes away from the house). But having said that, the
porch walls aren't enough off vertical to match the floor.


If the house is on a slope and the porch is on the down hill
side then
this is very likely as most old houses on slopes had an
element of 'cut
and fill'; back wall built on solid ground and the front wall
built on
spoil excavated from the back.

Bingo - on a slope, with the porch on the downhill side.


I'm *not* an engineer so don't take this as 'proper' advice;
Insurance
company's and mortgage company's tend to like ppl with bits
of paper to
write it all on other bits of paper.

Noted - but if the problem is indeed as you diagnose, what
solution would you suggest? Underpin the back wall + porch?


May well be that the porch is still 'settling in'
Probably best to shell out a couple of hundred quid to any
old chartered
struc eng with lots of PI

He'll be here on Tuesday :-). I'll let you know what he says.

Thanks for your thoughts.

--
Grunff

In message , Grunff
writes
mark wrote:

How big are the cracks altogether? (At their widest)

The original cracks have long been filled - but would be around
20-25mm. The new cracks (about 2 years in the making) are about 1-2mm.


When was the porch built?

AFAIK at the same time as the house, ~1930.


Is the floor inside the cottage look like it has raised up very slightly?

The downstairs has two back rooms (the area of interest). One of them
has a wooden floor. The other has a concrete floor, which had a big
crack righ acoss it, like it had dropped about 30mm at one end.


What could be happening is that the porch is 'rotating'; it's weight
could be pressing down on the earth outside the wall and heaving it up
inside the wall if you know what I mean. This would result in the
external wall's 'foot' moving off the vertical leading to an
exaggerated movement further up. Any bits of debris falling down
vertically along the edge of the partitions would keep wedging it out
also. The porch would tend to sink less where it is attached to the
main wall because of friction between it's (the porch) wall and the
main house wall; this shows as a lack of cracks between the porch and the main wall.
The roof will tend to hold back the top of the main wall so it 'bows'
as you have described.

You may be onto something here. The porch floor is decidedly unlevel
(slopes away from the house). But having said that, the porch walls
aren't enough off vertical to match the floor.

Unless the floor is sinking independently of the walls. It's sitting on
the same stuff. Any indications? Gaps under skirtings etc?


If the house is on a slope and the porch is on the down hill side
then this is very likely as most old houses on slopes had an element
of 'cut and fill'; back wall built on solid ground and the front wall
built on spoil excavated from the back.

Bingo - on a slope, with the porch on the downhill side.


I'm *not* an engineer so don't take this as 'proper' advice;
Insurance company's and mortgage company's tend to like ppl with bits
of paper to write it all on other bits of paper.

Noted - but if the problem is indeed as you diagnose, what solution
would you suggest? Underpin the back wall + porch?

Don't you be calling it a 'diagnosis' in public!
Underpinning could get pricey; cheaper than a rebuild though, depends
on how much digging it needs to get down to some decent stuff. Worth
trying bolted rods first just to see if it works. A mil a year isn't
exactly scary.


May well be that the porch is still 'settling in'
Probably best to shell out a couple of hundred quid to any old
chartered struc eng with lots of PI

He'll be here on Tuesday :-). I'll let you know what he says.

Yeah; be interesting

Thanks for your thoughts.

NP


--
mark

mark wrote:

Unless the floor is sinking independently of the walls. It's sitting on
the same stuff. Any indications? Gaps under skirtings etc?

There's was no skirting, so it was difficult to tell. I suspect
the back wall did drop by 30mm or so shortly after the house was
built.


Don't you be calling it a 'diagnosis' in public!
Underpinning could get pricey; cheaper than a rebuild though, depends
on how much digging it needs to get down to some decent stuff. Worth
trying bolted rods first just to see if it works. A mil a year isn't
exactly scary.

That's kind of my feeling - buildings move. As longs as they
remain stable, I'm happy.

--
Grunff

In article ,
Martin Angove wrote:

Can't help the shameless plug, but if you want to see some *real*
structural problems, take a look at Caerphilly Castle:

http://www.castlewales.com/caerphil.html

Particularly the first couple of pictures (the leaning tower is about 10
degrees) and the North dam wall. Both are suspected to be due to
subsidence when the moats were drained when the castle fell into disuse.
Neither has moved for some 300 years. The leaning tower is surveyed
every 6 months just to make sure!

Nice pics, I assume there is no record of attackers attempting to mine
the walls at that point to account for it? I ask because we recently
got around to visiting the Castle in St. Andrews (we had visitors to
show around) and they have both a mine and a counter mine which is still
intact and you can go down into them. Hacked out of the rock too.

Peter

--
Peter Ashby
School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland
To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded.
Reverse the Spam and remove to email me.

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 19:44:27 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Background - our house was built in the 30s, has a square
footprint around 8x8m, and has no foundations to speak of. It's
made of stone + lime mortar, and the walls are between 50 and
60cm thick.

When we bought it 2 years ago, we noticed that the back wall had
at some point in the past bowed, so that while it's still
attached to the outer walls, it's come away from the internal
partition walls, causing a lot of cracks between the end wall
and the partitions, and the end wall and the ground floor ceilings.

We filled these cracks so that we may study future movement. Two
years on, the wall seems to have shifted by another mm or so.

The wall isn't sinking - there are no cracks at floor level
downstairs. The cracks appear about 1m above floor level, and
increase in size as you go upwards.

Similarly, the wall is still firmly attached to the two exterior
side walls. So it's only moving outwards in the middle. It's bowing.

I know the traditional fix for this is to tie the two opposing
walls together with steel tie rods, and spread the load on the
outside of the walls using steel plates.

I am considering doing this to our house. The obvious place to
run the steel rods is between the floor and ceiling. This would
be fine, since they'd run parallel to the joists.

Has anyone done this before, and do you have any advice to
offer? Is there anywhere when I could read up on this? Basic
stuff - like how big the rods should be, how big the plates
should be, how far apart, how many (two seems very common), that
kind of thing.

Yes, I tied in the end gable wall of my daughters house earlier this year.
It's an end terrace. Only just found this thread, I'll try to find time to
give you the details tomorrow.

Phil

Phil Addison wrote:

Yes, I tied in the end gable wall of my daughters house earlier this year.
It's an end terrace. Only just found this thread, I'll try to find time to
give you the details tomorrow.

Thanks Phil, that would be much appreciated.

--
Grunff

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:57:18 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Phil Addison wrote:

Yes, I tied in the end gable wall of my daughters house earlier this year.
It's an end terrace. Only just found this thread, I'll try to find time to
give you the details tomorrow.

Thanks Phil, that would be much appreciated.

First of all, the house is quite different to yours. It is an 1890 end terrace
built with 11" single skin brick, i.e. 2 bricks thick, no cavity. My daughter
was having a loft conversion done when the builders noticed the gable wall
leaning, and pointed it out 'so they wouldn't be blamed for it'. It was, like
yours, firmly attached at the two end walls and bowing out from them. There
some cracks visible internally.

I got a structural engineer to look at it and he reckoned it was fairly
typical of that kind of property and not too bad, but he advised tie-rods to
prevent further movement.

The joists are parallel to the gable wall, and the opposite wall is a party
wall (being a terrace property). Apparently you don't want to fix to the
opposite wall (which in our case is a party wall), but to strengthen the
joists and affix the tie-rods to them. I suppose fixing to the opposite wall
would risk distorting that. The following is a description of the finished
work that I did, and there is an associated drawing that I could send you.
Basically, 7 joists are braced together with noggins, and boarding nailed over
them to make a very rigid diaphragm assembly supported on the side walls. The
tie rods are fixed to the 7th joist (from the leaning gable wall) only.

Description:

"There are two tie-rods equi-spaced between two steels I-beams which are 3m
apart and mortared into the walls. (These beams are nothing to do with the
tie-rods; they support the floor of the loft conversion).

The tie rods consist of M16 studding inserted through 20 mm holes bored
through the centre-line of 7"x2" joists, and the gable brick wall.

The joists are secured to wooden cross-members, which in turn are attached to
the steel I-beams using joist hangers and nails. There is an additional roof
I-beam, supported on lintels, at the apex of the gable. The rear elevation of
the loft has been converted into a flat-roofed dormer room.

Each tie-rod is composed of three 1m sections of M16 studding with the outer
1m section being stainless steel and the two inboard sections being mild
steel. The sections are joined using M16 mild steel couplers with lock-nuts
each side.

The inboard end is restrained with a 100 x 100 mm x 10mm mild steel plate, M16
washer and a pair of lock-nuts.

The load is distributed over seven joists (2 of which are doubled) by two rows
of 50 x 100 noggins per tie-rod. The noggins are staggered to allow nailing.
These are in addition to a row of noggins across the centres of all the
joists.

18 mm tongue and groove chipboard flooring is nailed to the joists to form a
diaphragm.

The outer wall plates are stainless steel discs 300mm diameter, drilled and
tapped M16 at the centre. They are screwed to the studding and each locked
with an M16 nut and washer (all in stainless steel).

The external rendering has been hacked away in the area behind the discs and a
thin skim of waterproof sand and cement mortar applied. The disks were
carefully bedded into this to ensure even pressure on the wall. After the
mortar had cured the discs were removed and frame sealant applied behind and
around the periphery to make a waterproof seal, and then the discs replaced
and locked. Finally the tie-rods were tensioned by tightening the inboard
nuts, and the lock-nuts secured."

The trickiest part was drilling the holes through the wall from the outside so
that they accurately lined up with the joist centre line. I could not drill
from the inside because a joist was close to the wall, and the length of the
drill bit (plus drill) was much greater than the distance between joists. I
actually drilled some location holes above the joist line and worked off
those. The problem there drilling horizontally accurately enough, so that
there wasn't too much vertical error between the start and finish of the
alignment hole.

The metal materials cost about £50, and the surveyors fee was £75. I hired a
90 degree drill to drill the joist centre holes, for about £25.

HTH.

Phil

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 14:21:33 GMT, "Phil Addison"
wrote:

The metal materials cost about £50, and the surveyors fee was £75. I hired a

I meant Structural Consultant's fee, fo that is what he called himself, though
without any of the fancy initials mentioned by others.

Phil

Phil Addison wrote:

First of all, the house is quite different to yours. It is an 1890 end terrace
built with 11" single skin brick, i.e. 2 bricks thick, no cavity. My daughter
was having a loft conversion done when the builders noticed the gable wall
leaning, and pointed it out 'so they wouldn't be blamed for it'. It was, like
yours, firmly attached at the two end walls and bowing out from them. There
some cracks visible internally.

Thank you very much Phil, that is very helpful. While there are
significant differences between the houses - for instance my
joists run parallel to the proposed rods - it gives me a pretty
good idea of what's involved.

I've got a structural engineer coming to take a look tomorrow
(for a somewhat higher fee than you paid yours!). I'll post results.

Thanks again.

--
Grunff

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 16:53:06 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Phil Addison wrote:

First of all, the house is quite different to yours. It is an 1890 end terrace
built with 11" single skin brick, i.e. 2 bricks thick, no cavity. My daughter
was having a loft conversion done when the builders noticed the gable wall
leaning, and pointed it out 'so they wouldn't be blamed for it'. It was, like
yours, firmly attached at the two end walls and bowing out from them. There
some cracks visible internally.

Thank you very much Phil, that is very helpful. While there are
significant differences between the houses - for instance my
joists run parallel to the proposed rods - it gives me a pretty
good idea of what's involved.

I've got a structural engineer coming to take a look tomorrow
(for a somewhat higher fee than you paid yours!). I'll post results.

There are some pics of it at
http://www.pando.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/TieRods/index.htm

Phil

Grunff wrote:

Background - our house was built in the 30s, has a square footprint
around 8x8m, and has no foundations to speak of. It's made of stone +
lime mortar, and the walls are between 50 and 60cm thick.

snip original post

The structural engineer has just been and gone. He appeared to
be very knowledgeable, and had lots of qualifications.

In short, he believes the wall has moved both downwards and
bowed outwards. Partly due to settlement of the cut and fill,
and partly due to the rear porch having no discernable foundations.

Top marks to mark for coming to almost exactly the same
conclusions without even seeing the place!!

He (the engineer) said that there's no need to take any action,
but that there may be some future movement, accompanied by
cracks to the interior plasterwork.

He suggested that putting in a tie or two, tieing the back wall
to the floor joist(s) may alleviate the cracking. Which is oddly
where my question started out...

So there. Nothing to worry about. Thanks to everyone who gave
sensible, reasoned advice.

--
Grunff

In article , Grunff
writes
Grunff wrote:

Background - our house was built in the 30s, has a square footprint
around 8x8m, and has no foundations to speak of. It's made of stone +
lime mortar, and the walls are between 50 and 60cm thick.

snip original post

The structural engineer has just been and gone. He appeared to
be very knowledgeable, and had lots of qualifications.

In short, he believes the wall has moved both downwards and
bowed outwards. Partly due to settlement of the cut and fill,
and partly due to the rear porch having no discernable foundations.

Top marks to mark for coming to almost exactly the same
conclusions without even seeing the place!!

He (the engineer) said that there's no need to take any action,
but that there may be some future movement, accompanied by
cracks to the interior plasterwork.

He suggested that putting in a tie or two, tieing the back wall
to the floor joist(s) may alleviate the cracking. Which is oddly
where my question started out...

So there. Nothing to worry about. Thanks to everyone who gave
sensible, reasoned advice.


Dont forget to keep a copy of his report safe and, once you have done
your DIY, get him to return and provide a certificate of satisfaction,
(or similar). This way, when you come to sell, you will have documents
to prevent a buyers surveyor second guessing the worst case scenario.

When the time comes, make sure your estate agent has copies of the
documents, and make absolutely certaing that any buyers surveyor
receives copies at the time of the survey.

--
Richard Faulkner

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:27:25 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Grunff wrote:

Background - our house was built in the 30s, has a square footprint
around 8x8m, and has no foundations to speak of. It's made of stone +
lime mortar, and the walls are between 50 and 60cm thick.

snip original post

The structural engineer has just been and gone. He appeared to
be very knowledgeable, and had lots of qualifications.

In short, he believes the wall has moved both downwards and
bowed outwards. Partly due to settlement of the cut and fill,
and partly due to the rear porch having no discernable foundations.

Top marks to mark for coming to almost exactly the same
conclusions without even seeing the place!!

He (the engineer) said that there's no need to take any action,
but that there may be some future movement, accompanied by
cracks to the interior plasterwork.

He suggested that putting in a tie or two, tieing the back wall
to the floor joist(s) may alleviate the cracking. Which is oddly
where my question started out...

So there. Nothing to worry about. Thanks to everyone who gave
sensible, reasoned advice.

I was talking to a builder friend the other day about my tie-rods, and he said
that he would simply have rebuilt the wall. He reckoned it is a
straightforward job. I can't say I'm convinced, but if feasible it would avoid
any future awkward questions from prospective buyers.

--
Phil Addison
The uk.d-i-y FAQ is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk/
Remove NOSPAM from address to reply