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.

TIA

--
Grunff

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
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.

TIA

--
Grunff


Just reading the first part of your post and I would advise you to call in
an engineer to take a look. If this movement is continuois, then something
needs to be done to stop it. You say that it is opening further and further
every year, so it will eventually get the point of no return and may
collapse.

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.

Good luck with.

PS. And just another point. Ask your insurance company what they think.
(this came from the little woman sitting behind me, who seems to be up on
that sort of thing)

BigWallop wrote:

Just reading the first part of your post and I would advise you to call in
an engineer to take a look. If this movement is continuois, then something
needs to be done to stop it. You say that it is opening further and further
every year, so it will eventually get the point of no return and may
collapse.

Well, yes, that's the obvious answer, but I'm looking for more
info at this stage.

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.


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.


Good luck with.

Thanks. No google link? ;-)

--
Grunff

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 20:08:07 +0100, Grunff wrote:

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.

[a] But you say it is still moving... What gives you confidence that the
movement will stop before it eventually collapses ? I don't think "it's
stood this long" is a particularly sound reason, engineering-wise !

[b] Do you think this wall is non-structural ? What's to say your house
won't come down with it.

I think you ought to get a structural engineer to take a look (was anyone
other than a surveyor involved when you bought the place). You could start
off the whole process with a call to your insurers, but be warned that after
a claim you may be unable to ever change companies.

I had a bulging back wall re-tied as part of the mortgage conditions on my
house - the outer leaf had come adrift from the inner (structural) wall.

--
Mail john rather than nospam...

John Laird wrote:

I think you ought to get a structural engineer to take a look (was anyone
other than a surveyor involved when you bought the place). You could start
off the whole process with a call to your insurers, but be warned that after
a claim you may be unable to ever change companies.


Structural engineer is MANDATORY. NOT expensive either usually. DO WHAT
THEY SAY and then you can sue them - or your insurance company can, when
the house falls down.

Its really not expensive to put a tie rod through and tighten up the bolts.

Just make sure its as specified by certified engineers with liability insurance.

Then you are covered against mistakes.

John Laird wrote:

[b] Do you think this wall is non-structural ? What's to say your house
won't come down with it.

No, the wall most certainly *is* structural, and the house would
most definitely come down with it. But that wouldn't be the end
of the world. That's what I'm saying.


I think you ought to get a structural engineer to take a look (was anyone
other than a surveyor involved when you bought the place). You could start
off the whole process with a call to your insurers, but be warned that after
a claim you may be unable to ever change companies.

Hmm..maybe. No, we didn't have a structural survey done (we were
fully aware of the problem).

--
Grunff

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Structural engineer is MANDATORY. NOT expensive either usually. DO WHAT
THEY SAY and then you can sue them - or your insurance company can, when
the house falls down.

What qualifications should one look for in a structural
engineer? Are all structural engineers listed in the yellow
pages equal?

--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:
No, the wall most certainly *is* structural, and the house would
most definitely come down with it. But that wouldn't be the end
of the world. That's what I'm saying.

It may well be the end of your world if you are in the house when it comes
down.

Darren Griffin wrote:

It may well be the end of your world if you are in the house when it comes
down.

I think it has a fair way to move before that happens, and would
be pretty obvious that something bad is about to happen. Houses
very rarely spontaneously self destruct without warning.

--
Grunff

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

Structural engineer is MANDATORY. NOT expensive either usually. DO WHAT
THEY SAY and then you can sue them - or your insurance company can, when
the house falls down.

What qualifications should one look for in a structural
engineer? Are all structural engineers listed in the yellow
pages equal?


Try a Chartered Civil or Structrual engineer, a decent engineer needs C Eng
after her or his name.

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

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.

As others have said, and perhaps to lend weight as if we were voting
on the next step, I'd consult someone who knows what they are talking
about. And your insurance company should be part of the deal.

It is possible that your insurance company has a get-out clause buried
in the fine print, in so far that at the time you purchased the
property there was a problem. That should have been noted by the
surveyor who inspected prior to purchase. Depending on his description
may be whether the insurance company feel they are liable (and like
all insurance companies their starting gambit will tend to be "not us,
guv!").

Remember that the Titanic didn't sink instantly after coming into
contact with a block of frozen water.

PoP

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Darren Griffin wrote:

It may well be the end of your world if you are in the house when it
comes
down.

I think it has a fair way to move before that happens, and would
be pretty obvious that something bad is about to happen. Houses
very rarely spontaneously self destruct without warning.

--
Grunff


Please say your not sure. All it can take is some ground movement or a
heavy lorry passing the building, to take any precarious structure over the
edge. Do you know that the joist are still properly seated on their
retainers ? Have the joists moved out of their original position and are
now sitting on crumbling mortar.

A low flying jet from RAF Leuchars, brought down a cottage in the wilds of
the Ayrshire country side. So please, if you can see that the movement is
continuing at a pretty even rate over short periods of time, then have it
looked at properly. We'd all miss you.

John Rumm wrote:

Are you sure its not the porch that is sinking and pulling the wall with
it?

I don't think so. First off, the wall isn't sinking - there's no
movement at ground level. It's bulging out, greatest bulge at
the centre of the wall. Second, I don't believe the porch walls
are tied in to the bulging wall - it appears to have just been
built there, in contact with but not attached to the wall.

--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:

supported by a great big stone porch on the outside, and [b] Even if it

Are you sure its not the porch that is sinking and pulling the wall with it?


--
Cheers,

John.

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

BigWallop wrote:

Please say your not sure. All it can take is some ground movement or a
heavy lorry passing the building, to take any precarious structure over the
edge. Do you know that the joist are still properly seated on their
retainers ? Have the joists moved out of their original position and are
now sitting on crumbling mortar.

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.


We'd all miss you.

I'm touched...

I will be doing something about it - don't worry. Just getting
the group's thoughts first. I like to understand things. I'm
trying to understand what possible solutions may exist. I like
to have this information before calling in someone who may or
may not know what they're talking about.

--
Grunff

Subject: Bowing house wall - tie rods?
From: Grunff
Date: 05/10/03 19:44 GMT Daylight Time
Message-id:

Background - our house was built in the 30s, has a square
footprint around 8x8m, and has no foundations to speak of.

Ummm, run, run very fast. Run now.

Seriously, it must have foundations or it wouldn't stil be up.

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.

I remember Fred Dibnah doing this to his house in his tv program. I think
you'll find the rods and plates are pretty much of a std size unless it's a
castle you're trying to shore up. The plates are about 1 foot in diameter (or
they can be crosses) and the rods are about an inch. Two in 8m sounds plenty. A
1 inch mild steel bar will withstand over 20 tons and there'll be nothing like
that sort of force pulling at your walls or they'd be down by now.

I read through the thread before posting and the bit about the front porch is
worrying. If the walls are bowing but not sinking and the porch is still
attached to the walls then the porch must be sinking or something else would
have had to crack. I think the porch could well be your problem.


Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk)
I'm not at all sure why women like men. We're argumentative, childish,
unsociable and extremely unappealing naked. I'm quite grateful they do though.

Dave Baker wrote:

Ummm, run, run very fast. Run now.

Seriously, it must have foundations or it wouldn't stil be up.

Ok, it has some very shallow stone foundations. No deeper than a
foot.


I remember Fred Dibnah doing this to his house in his tv program. I think
you'll find the rods and plates are pretty much of a std size unless it's a
castle you're trying to shore up. The plates are about 1 foot in diameter (or
they can be crosses) and the rods are about an inch. Two in 8m sounds plenty. A
1 inch mild steel bar will withstand over 20 tons and there'll be nothing like
that sort of force pulling at your walls or they'd be down by now.

Sounds reasonable.


I read through the thread before posting and the bit about the front porch is
worrying. If the walls are bowing but not sinking and the porch is still
attached to the walls then the porch must be sinking or something else would
have had to crack. I think the porch could well be your problem.

I know - it's puzzled me too. I concluded that the bowing wall
must be pushing the porch out with it. I think if the porch was
going to sink it would just detatch from the house. I could be
wrong.

--
Grunff

In article , Grunff
writes
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.

What are you waiting for - are you skint? a cheapskate? stupid? naeive?
..........

Get a structural engineer in fast. It will cost around £175 to £400 or
so, for a visual inspection, initial prognosis and advice for further
inspection and/or cure.

The longer you leave it, the more chance of having to rebuild the wall
than using simple metal strapping.

I would get the engineer 1st - before involving your insurance co.. You
may not need, or want, to bother with insurance.

This is not Do It Yourself - you need the correct paperwork to satisfy a
surveyor when you sell.


--
Richard Faulkner

Richard Faulkner wrote:

What are you waiting for - are you skint? a cheapskate? stupid? naeive?
..........

None of the above. I'm ... laid back.


This is not Do It Yourself - you need the correct paperwork to satisfy a
surveyor when you sell.

What is the correct paperwork? This is exactly why I posted my
question.

--
Grunff

"James Salisbury" wrote
| What qualifications should one look for in a structural
| engineer? Are all structural engineers listed in the yellow
| pages equal?
| Try a Chartered Civil or Structrual engineer, a decent engineer needs
| C Eng after her or his name.

You want a Structural Engineer who will be MIStructE (Member of the
Institute of Structural Engineers - www.istructe.org.uk but I don't think
they have an online member listing[1]) and CEng as well.

Owain

[1] They do have http://www.findanengineer.com/ but it's a paid-for listing
rather than a comprehensive register of members. You could try a local
reference library for the IStructE Sessional Yearbook and Directory of
Members

In article , Grunff
writes
Richard Faulkner wrote:

What are you waiting for - are you skint? a cheapskate? stupid? naeive?
..........

None of the above. I'm ... laid back.



I was being a bit tongue in cheek g, but you wont know when it moves
the millimetre from needing strapping to needing rebuilding.

This is not Do It Yourself - you need the correct paperwork to satisfy a
surveyor when you sell.

What is the correct paperwork? This is exactly why I posted my
question.


A Structural Engineers report with diagnosis and requirements.

A builders invoice for completion of said requirements

A Structural Engineers Certificate or letter of satisfaction with the
work.



--
Richard Faulkner

In article ,
Grunff wrote:
What qualifications should one look for in a structural
engineer? Are all structural engineers listed in the yellow
pages equal?

Remind me where you are, Grunff? I have a pal who is a structural
engineer and is distinctly lacking in BS when explaining things to the
likes of me - and is happy to give DIY instuctions. He travels a fair
bit judging by the rate he gets through cars. He's based in west London.

--
*It was all so different before everything changed.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

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

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 22:20:32 +0100, Grunff wrote:

John Laird wrote:

I think you ought to get a structural engineer to take a look (was anyone
other than a surveyor involved when you bought the place). You could start
off the whole process with a call to your insurers, but be warned that after
a claim you may be unable to ever change companies.

Hmm..maybe. No, we didn't have a structural survey done (we were
fully aware of the problem).

Did you buy this house without a mortgage, out of interest ? I can't
imagine any lender approving a loan without further investigation (nor the
valuer missing a large bulge). Fwiw, the bulge in the outer wall of my
house was of the order of an inch, over about 10' in height. I was informed
that renewing the wall ties was a practical solution up to an inch or so.
Beyond that, it was rebuilding time. Not in itself a huge job as the outer
leaf is non-structural, but as it was above a large conservatory, not
trivial either.

--
Mail john rather than nospam...

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

BigWallop wrote:
We'd all miss you.

I'm touched...

Indeed, however we'd still miss you! ;O)

Take Care,
Gnube
{too thick for linux}

Dave Plowman wrote:

Remind me where you are, Grunff? I have a pal who is a structural
engineer and is distinctly lacking in BS when explaining things to the
likes of me - and is happy to give DIY instuctions. He travels a fair
bit judging by the rate he gets through cars. He's based in west London.

Hi Dave,

I'm in mid Devon. That would make for an 8 hour total drive,
which is a fair bit. But thanks for the thought.

If your mate is down this way on other business, that would be
very handy.

--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Structural engineer is MANDATORY. NOT expensive either usually. DO
WHAT THEY SAY and then you can sue them - or your insurance company
can, when the house falls down.


What qualifications should one look for in a structural engineer? Are
all structural engineers listed in the yellow pages equal?


The most important thing is that they have insurance. If you ask your
local building inspector I am sure he will know who to use.

I am pretty sure that they have some certification. Institute of
structural engineers or summat. Round here ther is just one company, who
everybody uses. The way I had it from everybody was 'if you use X, and
do what they say, then you are completely covered' I did, and it cost me
a measly couole of hundred quid AFAICR to get an aspect of my design
fully qualified and specced out. I have a thick report on loadings and
deflections and so on that is very impressive, and completely
impenetrable, and satisfied the builiding inspector and the architect.

The thing is, it doesn't cost a huge amiount extra to use a big rod
versus a small one, and they overspecify to cover their arses, so
whatever they recommend won't be 'good enough' it will be 'massively
more than good enough' and they make their money from the report and
recommendations, not from installing extra bits at your expense.

John Laird wrote:

Did you buy this house without a mortgage, out of interest ?

No, we have a mortgage.

I can't
imagine any lender approving a loan without further investigation (nor the
valuer missing a large bulge).

Don't know whether they missed it or just didn't care, but it
seemed to make no difference to the lender.


Fwiw, the bulge in the outer wall of my
house was of the order of an inch, over about 10' in height. I was informed
that renewing the wall ties was a practical solution up to an inch or so.
Beyond that, it was rebuilding time. Not in itself a huge job as the outer
leaf is non-structural, but as it was above a large conservatory, not
trivial either.

This is a slightly different situation, because there's no
inner/outer leaf - it's just one thick, solid wall.

--
Grunff

BigWallop wrote:

"Grunff" wrote in message
...

Darren Griffin wrote:


It may well be the end of your world if you are in the house when it

comes

down.

I think it has a fair way to move before that happens, and would
be pretty obvious that something bad is about to happen. Houses
very rarely spontaneously self destruct without warning.

--
Grunff



Please say your not sure. All it can take is some ground movement or a
heavy lorry passing the building, to take any precarious structure over the
edge. Do you know that the joist are still properly seated on their
retainers ? Have the joists moved out of their original position and are
now sitting on crumbling mortar.

A low flying jet from RAF Leuchars, brought down a cottage in the wilds of
the Ayrshire country side. So please, if you can see that the movement is
continuing at a pretty even rate over short periods of time, then have it
looked at properly. We'd all miss you.




If you read up on Eulers slender strut/slender column theory, you might
get a shock. The amount of weight a fully supported wall can take,
versus the amount an already bowed wall can take, are vastly different.
The failure mode is catastrophic. I.e. once beyond a critical point, it
happens in seconds.

Without knowing more about the actual loadings and causes, its not
possible to say how dodgy this all is. That's why you need a structuiral
engineer.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The most important thing is that they have insurance. If you ask your
local building inspector I am sure he will know who to use.

Just spoke to them, and they're sorry, but they just can't
recommend anyone.

--
Grunff

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

The most important thing is that they have insurance. If you ask your
local building inspector I am sure he will know who to use.

Just spoke to them, and they're sorry, but they just can't
recommend anyone.


There is an institute, dont have the name to mind at the moment.

At a pinch you could contact the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors - a
building surveyor probably isn't what you want, but they shoudl be able to
point you to the correct Institute.

The Institute will most probably have strict rules on the minnimum amount of
PI Insurance that members carry (including run-on after they cease
business), and this shoudl be one of your questions when evaluating
candidates, but not one of the first ones!. If you go to someone and one of
your first questions on the phone that you ask is about their insurance
cover they will probably think that you have some ulterior motive and may
refuse the business.

If you get a spec from them and a certificate of completion or statement of
their satisfaction with the work or whatever then I see no reason at all why
you shouldn't DIY it - don't see that a certificate from a builders would be
necessary.

cheers
Richard

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

In article ,
Grunff wrote:
The most important thing is that they have insurance. If you ask your
local building inspector I am sure he will know who to use.

Just spoke to them, and they're sorry, but they just can't
recommend anyone.

Sign of the times, I'm afraid. By recommending someone they could
probably be held jointly liable if things went wrong.

--
*Failure is not an option. It's bundled with your software.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
Grunff wrote:
I'm in mid Devon. That would make for an 8 hour total drive,
which is a fair bit. But thanks for the thought.

Yes - I'd say so too. ;-) And in any case, a local man *should* be the
best bet as he'll be familiar with the quirks of regional differences in
construction and soil conditions etc.

If your mate is down this way on other business, that would be
very handy.

I'll certainly mention it.

--
*Why is the third hand on the watch called a second hand?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"Richard Faulkner" wrote in message


What is the correct paperwork? This is exactly why I posted my
question.


A Structural Engineers report with diagnosis and requirements.

A builders invoice for completion of said requirements

A Structural Engineers Certificate or letter of satisfaction with the
work.

Boy am I glad this is not my problem. The above advice is all sound.
Don't make a move until you have had good professional advice and don't
do anything until it all agrees.

A 30 year old house will be sitting on a concrete pad if there is no
rock to base a foundation on. It's pretty nearly total building practice
in the UK these days. Inspection is going to be a problem if you
have cavities that have been filled with heat insulation. Inspection
means taking a brick or block our of a corner and looking inside.
Obviously tere are high tech ways of doing it these days that do little
damage. I don't know what they are.

If the problem is not the foundations then it is almost definitely the
ties. The roof is pushing the wall outwards and the floors are holding
it all back; the joists are countering the force of the rafters only if
the walls are tied. Unfortunately, joists are not usually tied into the
walls but just rest in situ.

Once it has been established that you are in danger you may be forced to
leave. The house may even be condemned. I hope that doesn't happen to
you and if the bow isn't too serious this is all the more reason to get
it surveyed ASAP.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Michael Mcneil wrote:

A 30 year old house will be sitting on a concrete pad if there is no
rock to base a foundation on. It's pretty nearly total building practice
in the UK these days. Inspection is going to be a problem if you
have cavities that have been filled with heat insulation. Inspection
means taking a brick or block our of a corner and looking inside.
Obviously tere are high tech ways of doing it these days that do little
damage. I don't know what they are.

It's 70 years old (1930s), no concrete pad, no cavity.


If the problem is not the foundations then it is almost definitely the
ties. The roof is pushing the wall outwards and the floors are holding
it all back; the joists are countering the force of the rafters only if
the walls are tied. Unfortunately, joists are not usually tied into the
walls but just rest in situ.

Not sure about the roof theory. The wall is bulging most at 1st
floor floor level, not 1st floor ceiling level.


Once it has been established that you are in danger you may be forced to
leave. The house may even be condemned. I hope that doesn't happen to
you and if the bow isn't too serious this is all the more reason to get
it surveyed ASAP.

As I said, rebuilding wouldn't be such a bad thing. As long as
it's justified.

--
Grunff

Grunff wrote:

Michael Mcneil wrote:

A 30 year old house will be sitting on a concrete pad if there is no
rock to base a foundation on. It's pretty nearly total building practice
in the UK these days. Inspection is going to be a problem if you
have cavities that have been filled with heat insulation. Inspection
means taking a brick or block our of a corner and looking inside.
Obviously tere are high tech ways of doing it these days that do little
damage. I don't know what they are.


It's 70 years old (1930s), no concrete pad, no cavity.


If the problem is not the foundations then it is almost definitely the
ties. The roof is pushing the wall outwards and the floors are holding
it all back; the joists are countering the force of the rafters only if
the walls are tied. Unfortunately, joists are not usually tied into the
walls but just rest in situ.


Not sure about the roof theory. The wall is bulging most at 1st floor
floor level, not 1st floor ceiling level.


Once it has been established that you are in danger you may be forced to
leave. The house may even be condemned. I hope that doesn't happen to
you and if the bow isn't too serious this is all the more reason to get
it surveyed ASAP.


As I said, rebuilding wouldn't be such a bad thing. As long as it's
justified.


Mm. Its not taht hard - acrows remove and replace basically.

Is it timber or brick?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Mm. Its not taht hard - acrows remove and replace basically.

If we did rebuild, we'd build the new house about 20 yards away
from the existing one, then knock down the old one.


Is it timber or brick?

Stone. Lots of chunks of granite, with *lots* of lime mortar in
between.

--
Grunff

On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 22:27:56 +0100, Grunff wrote:

Darren Griffin wrote:

It may well be the end of your world if you are in the house when it comes
down.

I think it has a fair way to move before that happens, and would
be pretty obvious that something bad is about to happen. Houses
very rarely spontaneously self destruct without warning.

Walls do.
The very first house we bought about 30 years ago had this happen to a
boundary wall 6ft high and about 30ft long. Damp got into the
brickwork. One night we heard a loud bang and looked out to see the
wall totally demolished and lumps of ice sticking to the debris. I
would never have believed it could happen without the experience of
having seen it.

--
Alan G
"The corporate life [of society] must be
subservient to the lives of the parts instead
of the lives of the parts being subservient to
the corporate life."
(Herbert Spencer)

Grunff wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Mm. Its not taht hard - acrows remove and replace basically.


If we did rebuild, we'd build the new house about 20 yards away from the
existing one, then knock down the old one.


Is it timber or brick?


Stone. Lots of chunks of granite, with *lots* of lime mortar in between.



Lovely. If you do rebuild, and need a shoulder to cry on, give us a
shout :-)

I also discovered I can do a good job on design, apart from the
structural bits, which I left to the architect..Someone asked me 'who
designed your house?' and after a lot of thought, I realised that how it
looks and how it works is entirely me, but how its built is 80% the
architect, 5% the structural engineers and 25% the blokes who built it.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Lovely. If you do rebuild, and need a shoulder to cry on, give us a
shout :-)

Oh don't you worry - you're already on my list :-). Thanks.


I also discovered I can do a good job on design, apart from the
structural bits, which I left to the architect..Someone asked me 'who
designed your house?' and after a lot of thought, I realised that how it
looks and how it works is entirely me, but how its built is 80% the
architect, 5% the structural engineers and 25% the blokes who built it.

There's a bit of me which would really like to rebuild - it'd be
nice to get exactly what we want, rather than a big compromise.
However, there's another (bigger) bit of me which would like to
save 80k. So I'm kind of hoping we're forced down the rebuild
route, but unless we have to, it's unlikely we'd do it.

The thing about our place is that the spot is perfect - 16 acres
of south facing slope, with the house slap bang in the middle of
it. That's why we were quite happy to buy it despite the awful
state of the house.

http://ixxa.com/alchey/hi.jpg

The blue line is our boundary, and the pink dot in the middle is
the house. We've no intention of moving, so we just have to
figure out how best to use what we have - whether it's
rebuilding or fixing up the existing house.

--
Grunff